- 1 gün önce
Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM) Büyük Dairesi, 2017'den bu yana cezaevinde bulunan iş insanı ve sivil toplum aktivisti Osman Kavala'nın ikinci başvurusuna ilişkin olarak kararını açıkladı. Mahkeme, Türkiye'nin AİHS'nin 3 (işkence yasağı), 5 (özgürlük ve güvenlik hakkı), 6 (adil yargılanma hakkı), 10 (ifade özgürlüğü), 11 (toplantı ve dernek kurma özgürlüğü), 18. (haklara getirilecek kısıtlanmaların sınırlandırılması) maddelerini ihlal ettiğine hükmetti. Büyük Daire, Anayasa Mahkemesi'nin bu dosyada etkili bir iç hukuk yolu olmadığını söyledi. Mahkeme, kararında Kavala'nın Anayasa Mahkemesi başvurusunun karar sürecinin uzaması nedeniyle AİHM'e başvurmadan önce bu sürecin tamamlanmasını beklemesinin gerekmediğini ifade etti. AİHM, yerel mahkemelerin "kötü niyetli olarak Kavala'yı özgürlüğünden mahrum bıraktığını" söyledi. Mahkeme, Gezi Parkı protestolarının barışçıl olduğunu vurgulayarak düşünce özgürlüğü, toplantı ve gösteri özgürlüğünün ihlal edildiğini belirtti.
https://t24.com.tr/gundem/aihm-buyuk-dairesi-osman-kavala-hakkindaki-ikinci-kararini-aciklayacak,1343839?_t=1787657976928
https://t24.com.tr/gundem/aihm-buyuk-dairesi-osman-kavala-hakkindaki-ikinci-kararini-aciklayacak,1343839?_t=1787657976928
Kategori
🗞
HaberlerDöküm
00:00La Cour
00:35I declare open the hearing for the delivery of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
00:42in the case of Kavala versus Turkey No. 2,
00:47pursuant to Article 44 of the Convention and Rule 77, Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Court.
00:57The adjunct of the government and the representatives of the applicant have been
01:01duly informed of the date and time of the hearing.
01:06The government are represented by Mr. Selayir,
01:10legal counsel or the permanent representation of Turkey to the Council of Europe.
01:15The applicant is represented by Professor Celi.
01:19The Council of Europe, Commission of Human Rights,
01:22is represented by Mr. Mathieu Birker, advisor to the Commissioner.
01:28I welcome the representatives in the name of the Court.
01:34The judgment delivered today concerns an application that was lodged by Mr. Kavala
01:40on the 18th of January 2024 under Article 34 of the Convention.
01:46The application was allocated to the second section of the Court,
01:50pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court.
01:55On the 21st of March 2024,
01:59the President of the Section decided to apply Rule 41
02:02and grant the applicant's request for priority treatment.
02:06The government were given notice of the application on the same date.
02:11On the 16th of December 2025,
02:14the Chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber.
02:20The Council of Europe, Commission of Human Rights,
02:24exercised his right to intervene in the proceedings before the Grand Chamber
02:28by submitting written observations and participating in the hearing.
02:32Furthermore, nine non-governmental organizations
02:37and one individual were granted leave
02:39to make written submissions in the proceedings
02:41before the Chamber in accordance with Rule 44, Paragraph 3a
02:46of the Rules of Court.
02:49This authorization was maintained for the purposes of the proceedings
02:54before the Grand Chamber.
02:54On the 3rd of February 2026,
02:59I authorized a further seven organizations to intervene
03:03at third parties in the proceedings.
03:06The Grand Chamber held a hearing on the 25th of March 2026.
03:11It adopted its judgment on the 2nd of July 2026.
03:17I shall now provide a brief explanation of the facts of the case
03:21and of the Court's assessment of each complaint.
03:25This case concerns the applicant's detention
03:28and subsequent conviction resulting in a sentence
03:32of aggravated life imprisonment.
03:34The applicant claims that these measures were taken against him
03:39because of his activities and his public stance
03:42as a human rights defender.
03:44The Court had already examined the applicant's situation
03:48in its judgment of the 10th of December 2019.
03:53In that judgment, the Court found violations of Article 5
03:57and 18 of the Convention,
03:59ruling that the applicant should be released immediately.
04:03The present case relates to events that occurred afterwards.
04:08On the 18th February 2020,
04:10the Istanbul 30th Assize Court acquitted the applicant
04:14of attempting to overthrow the government
04:15under Article 312 of the Criminal Code
04:18in connection with the Gezi Park events.
04:21The Court also ordered his release
04:24pending the final outcome of the rollout of proceedings.
04:28However, it was not released.
04:31On the same day, he was arrested again
04:33in connection with an investigation
04:35into acts punishable under Article 309
04:39of the Criminal Code
04:40relating to the attempted coup d'état
04:42of 15 July 2016.
04:45The following day,
04:46he was placed in pretrial detention
04:48on this charge.
04:51It is also important to note that at the same time,
04:57the Council of Judges and Prosecutors
04:59initiated a preliminary investigation
05:01and subsequently opened disciplinary proceedings
05:04against the three judges of the Istanbul Assize Court
05:08who had acquitted the applicant the previous day.
05:12From the 9th of March 2020 onwards,
05:16the applicant was also kept in pretrial detention
05:19on an additional charge of military or political espionage
05:23under Article 328 of the Criminal Code.
05:26On the 28th of September 2020,
05:30the Istanbul Public Prosecutor's Office
05:33filed an indictment charging the applicant
05:35with attempting to overthrow the constitutional order
05:38and with military or political espionage
05:41under Article 309 and 328 of the Criminal Code.
05:47On the 22nd of January 2021,
05:49the acquitted judgment relating to the Gacy Park's events
05:53was overturned.
05:55The applicant was then convicted of charges
05:58relating to those events
05:59and on 25th of April 2022,
06:03sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment.
06:07However,
06:09he was acquitted of the espionage charge
06:11at the same time.
06:13This conviction was subsequently upheld on appeal
06:16and confirmed by the Code of Cassation
06:19in September 2023.
06:23The first issue
06:25addressed in today's judgment
06:27is whether the applicant was required
06:30to await the outcome
06:31of the two individual applications
06:33pending before the constitutional court
06:35at the time he submitted his application
06:37to the European Court.
06:40The judgment dismisses the government's objection
06:43on three main considerations taken together.
06:48Firstly,
06:50the judgment considers the exceptional circumstances
06:53of the case
06:54and the applicant's personal situation
06:57since his arrest
06:59on 18th of October 2017.
07:03The applicant has been deprived
07:05as a liberty without interruption,
07:08totaling more than eight and a half years.
07:11throughout this period,
07:13he was consistently and diligently used,
07:16he has consistently and diligently used,
07:19all available domestic remedies.
07:22However,
07:24none of these remedies have led to his release,
07:27nor have they provided adequate acknowledgments
07:30of the violations
07:31are identified or appropriate redress.
07:35Secondly,
07:36the judgment notes that
07:38the applicant's case is characterized
07:40by the domestic authorities' persistent failure
07:43to execute previous court judgments
07:45relating to the Gacy Park events
07:48and the charges brewed against Mr. Kavala
07:50in this respect.
07:54Thirdly,
07:56the judgment
07:57finds that the proceedings
08:00before the constitutional court
08:01were excessively lengthy
08:02despite the fact
08:04that individual liberty was at stake.
08:06The judgment
08:07finds that these delays
08:09are manifestly excessive
08:11in the particular circumstances of the case,
08:14taking these three considerations
08:16together into account.
08:18The judgment
08:20concludes that
08:21the applicant
08:23cannot be criticized
08:24for not awaiting
08:25the outcome
08:25of his individual applications
08:27to the constitutional court,
08:29given that
08:30the effectiveness
08:31of this remedy
08:32has been seriously
08:33compromised.
08:35However,
08:37the judgment
08:38stresses that
08:39this conclusion
08:41is strictly limited
08:42to the specific circumstances
08:44of this case
08:45and does not call
08:47into question
08:47the general effectiveness
08:49of such remedies.
08:51Lastly,
08:53the judgment
08:54expresses concern
08:56about the applicant's
08:57argument
08:57that the domestic courts
08:58refused to give effect
09:00to the constitutional court's
09:01judgments
09:02in two cases
09:03concerning his co-defendants.
09:05In this regard,
09:07the judgment
09:07reiterates
09:09that
09:09deliberately failing
09:10to implement
09:11the constitutional court's
09:13judgments
09:13can undermine
09:15the rule of law
09:16and the effectiveness
09:17of individual applications
09:18to the court
09:19for human rights violations.
09:22The second question
09:24examined in the judgment
09:24is whether
09:26the measures
09:26complainant
09:27amount to
09:28interference
09:29with the applicant's
09:30exercise of his rights
09:31to freedom of expression
09:32and peaceful assembly
09:34under Article 10
09:35and 11
09:36of the convention.
09:40The judgment
09:41states that
09:42the acts
09:43underlying the charges
09:44on the applicant's
09:45conviction
09:46mainly consist
09:47of participating
09:48in public debates,
09:50supporting
09:51civil society
09:52initiatives,
09:53disseminating
09:54information
09:54and engaging
09:56in advocacy
09:57activities
09:57connected with
09:58the Gezi Park
09:59events.
10:00These activities
10:01are covered
10:02by Article 10
10:04and 11
10:05of the convention.
10:06The judgment
10:07also invites
10:08the essential role
10:10of human rights
10:10defenders
10:11and NGOs
10:12as public
10:13watchdogs
10:13in the democratic
10:15society.
10:16It therefore
10:17concludes that
10:18in so far
10:19as they are
10:20linked
10:21to the applicant's
10:22human rights
10:23activities
10:23and involvement
10:24in the Gezi Park
10:25events,
10:26the criminal charges
10:27and conviction
10:28constitute
10:29an interference
10:30with his rights
10:31under Articles
10:3210 and 11.
10:35The judgment
10:36further finds
10:38that
10:38the interference
10:39was not
10:39prescribed by law.
10:41It considers
10:42that
10:43Article 312
10:45of the criminal
10:46code
10:47has been
10:47interpreted
10:48by the domestic
10:49court
10:50in an
10:51unforcibly
10:52broad manner.
10:53Although
10:54that provision
10:55concerns
10:55the offense
10:56of attempting
10:56to overthrow
10:57the government
10:57by force
10:58and violence,
10:59the applicant
11:00was not
11:01found
11:02to have
11:02personally
11:03committed,
11:03incited,
11:04or supported
11:05any violent
11:06act.
11:07Rather,
11:08his criminal
11:09liability
11:09is based
11:10on his
11:10alleged
11:11influence
11:11within the
11:12Gezi Park
11:12movement
11:13and on
11:14activities
11:15such as
11:15civil society
11:16work,
11:17contacts
11:17with
11:18international
11:18actors,
11:19advocacy,
11:20documentation
11:21of human rights
11:22violations,
11:23and support
11:24for peaceful
11:25demonstrations.
11:26The judgment
11:27notes that
11:28these activities
11:30are an
11:31ordinary
11:32exercise
11:32of the
11:33right to
11:33freedom of
11:33expression
11:34and peaceful
11:34assembly.
11:36By equating
11:37them with
11:37the material
11:38elements
11:39of an
11:39exceptionally
11:40serious
11:40criminal
11:41offense
11:41and attributing
11:43violence
11:43committed by
11:44third parties
11:44to the
11:45applicant
11:45without
11:45any
11:46direct
11:47or
11:48intentional
11:48link,
11:49the domestic
11:50courts
11:51failed to
11:52provide
11:52adequate
11:53protection
11:53against
11:54arbitrarianess.
11:56Moreover,
11:58such
11:58an
11:59interpretation
11:59is liable
12:01to have
12:02a particular
12:02serious
12:03chilling
12:03effect
12:03on the
12:04exercise
12:05of the
12:05freedoms
12:05guaranteed
12:06by
12:06Article 10
12:07and 11
12:08of the
12:08Convention.
12:10The
12:10prospect
12:11of
12:11prosecution
12:12for an
12:12offense
12:13punishable
12:13by aggravated
12:14life
12:14imprisonment
12:15would
12:16likely
12:16discourage
12:17not only
12:18human
12:18right
12:18defenders
12:19or
12:19civil
12:19society
12:20actors
12:20but also
12:21ordinary
12:22citizens
12:23from
12:26participating
12:27in
12:27organizing
12:29or
12:30providing
12:30logistical
12:31financial
12:32or
12:32intellectual
12:33support
12:33for
12:33peaceful
12:34demonstrations.
12:35When
12:36applied to
12:37nationwide
12:37protest
12:38movements,
12:39such an
12:39interpretation
12:40carries the
12:40risk of
12:41ex post
12:42facto
12:43reclassification
12:44under
12:44criminal law
12:45when sporadic
12:46violence occurs
12:47on the
12:47margins
12:47of gas
12:48rings.
12:50The
12:51judgment
12:51therefore
12:51concludes
12:52that
12:53the
12:54interference
12:54in
12:54question
12:54cannot
12:55be
12:55regarded
12:56as
12:56prescribed
12:56by
12:57law
12:57within
12:58the
12:58meaning
12:58of
12:59Article 10
13:00and
13:0011
13:00of
13:01the
13:01Convention.
13:02Accordingly,
13:03it
13:03finds a
13:04violation
13:04of
13:05those
13:05provisions.
13:08The
13:09third
13:10question
13:10examined
13:11in the
13:11judgment
13:11concerns
13:12the
13:12fairness
13:13of the
13:14criminal
13:14proceedings
13:14under
13:15Article 6
13:16Paragraph 1
13:16of the
13:17Convention.
13:18The
13:19judgment
13:19observes
13:20that the
13:21applicant's
13:21case was
13:22examined by
13:23several
13:23different
13:24judicial
13:24formations
13:25following
13:26repeated
13:27decisions
13:27to join
13:28several
13:29and
13:29reassign
13:30the
13:30proceedings.
13:31Moreover,
13:32after the
13:33applicant's
13:33acquittal by
13:34the
13:34Istanbul
13:3513th
13:35Assize
13:36Court,
13:37disciplinary
13:37proceedings
13:38were brought
13:39against the
13:40judges who
13:40had
13:41acquitted
13:41him.
13:42The
13:43judgment
13:43considers
13:44that these
13:44circumstances
13:45taken
13:46together
13:46with
13:47broader
13:47political
13:48and
13:48judicial
13:48context
13:49require
13:49particularly
13:51careful
13:51scrutiny.
13:53The
13:54judgment
13:54also
13:55highlights
13:55significant
13:57shortcomings
13:57in the
13:58reasoning
13:59of
13:59domestic
13:59courts.
14:00While
14:01the
14:01offense
14:02under
14:02Article 312
14:04of the
14:04Criminal
14:05Code
14:05involves
14:06the
14:06use
14:07of
14:07force
14:07and
14:07violence,
14:08the
14:08courts
14:09failed
14:09to
14:10establish
14:10a
14:10concrete
14:11causal
14:11link
14:12between
14:12the
14:12applicant
14:13sections
14:13and
14:14the
14:14violent
14:14incidents
14:15that
14:15occurred
14:16during
14:16the
14:16Gazi
14:17Park
14:17protests.
14:18Instead,
14:19the
14:20applicant's
14:21conviction
14:21was largely
14:22based on
14:23contextual
14:24and
14:25insufficiently
14:26individualized
14:27inferences
14:28with no
14:29proper assessment
14:30of the
14:30material
14:31intentional
14:31elements
14:32of the
14:32offense.
14:33The
14:34interpretation
14:34of the
14:35criminal
14:35law
14:35was
14:36arbitrary
14:37and
14:37unforeseeable
14:38to the
14:39applicant's
14:40detriment
14:40resulting
14:41in a
14:42manifestly
14:43unresumable
14:44outcome.
14:45The
14:46refusal
14:46to hear
14:47key
14:48defense
14:48witnesses
14:49combined
14:50with the
14:51lack
14:51of
14:51effective
14:51review
14:52by the
14:52higher
14:52courts
14:53further
14:54undermined
14:54the
14:55fairness
14:55of the
14:56proceedings.
14:58Regarding
14:59the
14:59independence
15:00and the
15:00partiality
15:01of the
15:01domestic
15:02courts
15:02that
15:02convicted
15:03Mr.
15:03Cavala
15:04in
15:04relation
15:04to
15:05the
15:05Gazi
15:05Park
15:05events
15:06and
15:06sentenced
15:06him
15:07to
15:07aggravated
15:08life
15:09imprisonment,
15:09the
15:10judgment
15:10highlights
15:11that
15:12several
15:12factors
15:13could
15:13raise
15:14legitimate
15:14doubts
15:17in the
15:18eyes
15:19of an
15:19objective
15:19observer.
15:21These
15:22include
15:22the
15:23disciplinary
15:23investigation
15:24upon
15:24the
15:24judges
15:25who
15:25had
15:25previously
15:26acquitted
15:26the
15:27applicant
15:27in
15:27light
15:27of
15:27these
15:28factors
15:28and
15:29the
15:29structural
15:30concerns
15:31regarding
15:31judicial
15:32independence
15:32in
15:32Turkey.
15:33The
15:34judgment
15:34concludes
15:34that
15:35these
15:35shortcomings
15:36were
15:36not
15:36malepressal
15:37flaws
15:38but
15:38fundamentally
15:39impaired
15:40the
15:41applicant's
15:41right
15:41to
15:42a
15:42fair
15:42trial.
15:43The
15:44judgment
15:44finds
15:45that
15:46has
15:46been
15:46a
15:46violation
15:47of
15:47Article
15:476
15:48Paragraph
15:481
15:48of
15:49the
15:49Convention.
15:51The
15:51fourth
15:52question
15:53examined
15:53in
15:53the
15:54judgment
15:54concerns
15:55Article
15:555
15:56Paragraph
15:571
15:57of
15:57the
15:57Convention
15:58and
15:59the
15:59lawfulness
15:59of
16:00the
16:00applicant's
16:00deprivation
16:01of
16:01liberty
16:01since
16:02the
16:02Court's
16:032019
16:03judgment.
16:05The
16:06judgment
16:06distinguishes
16:07between
16:07two
16:07periods.
16:09The
16:09first
16:09period
16:10is
16:11between
16:11the
16:11previous
16:12court's
16:12delivery
16:12of
16:13its
16:13judgment
16:13of
16:1410
16:14December
16:152019
16:16and
16:17the
16:17applicant's
16:18subsequent
16:18conviction
16:19on
16:1925th
16:20of
16:21April
16:212022.
16:23In this
16:24respect,
16:25the
16:26Court rejects
16:26the
16:27Covenant's
16:27objection
16:28that the
16:28complaint
16:28was lodged
16:29outside the
16:30time limit.
16:32Regarding the
16:33merits of this
16:34complaint,
16:35the
16:35judgment
16:35states
16:36that the
16:37applicant
16:38remained in
16:39pretrial
16:39detention
16:40despite the
16:41court's
16:42earlier
16:43finding that
16:44the
16:44suspicions
16:45against him
16:45were
16:45insufficient
16:46and were
16:47loyally
16:47based on
16:48acts
16:48protected by
16:49the
16:49Convention.
16:51The
16:51domestic
16:51court extended
16:52its
16:53detention
16:53on the
16:54basis of
16:55the
16:55same
16:55evidence,
16:56reclassified
16:57under
16:58different
16:58criminal
16:59offenses
16:59without
17:02identifying
17:03any new
17:04facts,
17:05strong
17:05suspicions
17:06or relevant
17:07grounds
17:08capable of
17:08justifying
17:09his
17:09continued
17:10detention.
17:11The
17:12judgment
17:13therefore
17:13concludes
17:13that the
17:14authorities
17:15act in
17:15bad faith,
17:16seeking to
17:17circumvent
17:18both
17:18domestic
17:19law and
17:20the
17:20Convention
17:20in order
17:21to keep
17:21Mr.
17:22Kavala
17:22in
17:23detention.
17:24Since
17:25the
17:2525th
17:26of
17:26April
17:262022,
17:27the
17:28applicant's
17:29detention
17:29has
17:30been
17:30based
17:30on
17:30his
17:31conviction
17:31and
17:32the
17:32imposed
17:33sentence
17:33of
17:34a
17:34gravitated
17:34life
17:35imprisonment.
17:36However,
17:37the
17:38judgment
17:38found
17:38that
17:39these
17:39convictions
17:39resulted
17:40from
17:40proceedings
17:42constituting
17:43a
17:43flagrant
17:44denial
17:44of
17:44justice,
17:46characterized
17:46by
17:47significant
17:48deficiencies
17:49affecting
17:49fairness,
17:50independence
17:51and
17:51impartiality
17:52as
17:52previously
17:53determined
17:54under
17:54Article 6
17:55of the
17:56Convention.
17:57Furthermore,
17:59the
17:59conviction
17:59was
17:59based
18:00on
18:01an
18:01enforceable
18:02interpretation
18:02of
18:02criminal
18:03law
18:03and
18:03activities
18:04that
18:04are
18:05protected
18:05under
18:07Article 10
18:08and
18:0811.
18:10Accordingly,
18:11the
18:11judgment
18:12concludes
18:12that
18:13the
18:14applicant's
18:14detention
18:15both
18:15before
18:16and
18:17since
18:17his
18:18conviction
18:18has
18:19not
18:19been
18:19lawful
18:20within
18:21the
18:21meaning
18:21of
18:21Article 5
18:22and
18:22that
18:24his
18:24deprivation
18:25of
18:25liberty
18:25since
18:26the
18:2610th
18:26of
18:27December
18:272019
18:28amounts
18:29to
18:29a
18:29violation
18:29of
18:30the
18:30Convention.
18:33The
18:33fifth
18:34question
18:35examined
18:36in the
18:36judgment
18:36concerns
18:37whether
18:37the
18:38measures
18:38taken
18:39again
18:39the
18:39applicant
18:39pursued
18:40an
18:40ulterior
18:41purpose
18:41within
18:42the meaning
18:42of
18:42Article 18
18:43of the
18:44Convention.
18:45The
18:46judgment
18:46states
18:47that the
18:47case
18:48should
18:48not
18:48be
18:48considered
18:49in
18:49isolation
18:50but
18:51rather
18:51in
18:51the
18:52broader
18:52context
18:52of
18:53the
18:53detention
18:53and
18:54prosecution
18:54of
18:54human
18:55rights
18:55defenders
18:55journalists
18:56and
18:57political
18:57opponents
18:58on the
18:58basis
18:59of
18:59serious
18:59and
19:00often
19:00exaggerated
19:02criminal
19:02charges.
19:03It
19:03notes
19:03that
19:04in
19:05its
19:052019
19:06ruling
19:07the
19:08court
19:08already
19:09found
19:09that
19:11the
19:11applicant's
19:11detention
19:11was
19:12not
19:12based
19:13on
19:13reasonable
19:13suspicion
19:14but
19:15rather
19:15pursued
19:16the
19:16purpose
19:16of
19:17silencing
19:17him
19:18and
19:18discouraging
19:19other
19:19civil
19:20society
19:20actors.
19:21Today's
19:22judgment
19:22concludes
19:23that
19:24subsequent
19:25proceedings
19:26did not
19:27dispel
19:27this
19:28confluence.
19:29No
19:29new
19:29concrete
19:30or convincing
19:31evidence
19:31was presented
19:32and the
19:33applicant
19:33conviction
19:34was largely
19:34based on
19:35his civic
19:36associative
19:37and public
19:37interest
19:38activities
19:39rather than
19:39on any
19:40specific
19:41acts
19:41of violence.
19:43The
19:44judgment
19:44also
19:44takes
19:45into
19:45account
19:46the
19:46serious
19:47shortcomings
19:48affecting
19:49the
19:49fairness
19:49and
19:49dependence
19:50and
19:50partiality
19:51of the
19:51proceedings
19:51as well
19:52as
19:52public
19:52statements
19:53by
19:53high-ranking
19:54officials
19:55which have
19:55contributed
19:56to a
19:56climate
19:56of
19:57political
19:57and
19:58media
19:58pressure.
20:00It
20:00considers
20:01that the
20:02repeated
20:03legal
20:03reclassifications,
20:05successive
20:05detention
20:06orders,
20:07and continued
20:07deprivation
20:08of liberty
20:08have had
20:09the effect
20:10of neutralizing
20:11judicial
20:11decisions
20:12in the
20:12applicant's
20:13favor
20:13and prolonging
20:14his
20:14detention.
20:16In
20:17particular,
20:18the
20:18judgment
20:18recognized
20:19the
20:20exception
20:20of gravity
20:21and
20:21emblematic
20:22nature
20:22of the
20:23applicant's
20:23situation.
20:25This
20:26is due
20:26to the
20:27duration
20:27and
20:28intensity
20:29of the
20:29interference
20:30with his
20:30fundamental
20:30rights
20:31as well
20:32as the
20:33implications
20:34which extend
20:35far beyond
20:36his
20:36individual
20:37situation.
20:39The
20:40applicants
20:40prolonged
20:41deprivation
20:41of liberty
20:42and
20:43ulterior
20:44purpose
20:44to
20:45stifle
20:45pluralism
20:46and
20:47restrict
20:47freedom
20:47of
20:48political
20:48debate.
20:49These
20:50principles
20:50lie
20:51at the
20:51very
20:52core
20:52of
20:53democratic
20:53values
20:54and
20:54European
20:54public
20:55order.
20:56The
20:56judgment
20:57also
20:57finds
20:57that
20:58the
20:58criminal
20:59proceedings,
20:59the
21:00applicants
21:00continued
21:01detention
21:02and his
21:02conviction
21:03were
21:04predominantly
21:04motivated
21:06by the
21:07ulterior
21:07purpose
21:08of
21:08punishing
21:09him
21:09for
21:10his
21:10role
21:11in the
21:11gacy
21:11park
21:11events
21:12for
21:12his
21:12opinions
21:13as a
21:13human
21:14rights
21:14defender
21:14and
21:15of
21:15silencing
21:16him.
21:18Accordingly,
21:19the
21:20judgment
21:20finds
21:20a violation
21:21of
21:21article
21:2218
21:22taken
21:23in
21:23conjunction
21:24with
21:24articles
21:255
21:25paragraph
21:261,
21:276
21:27paragraph
21:271,
21:28and
21:2810
21:29and
21:2911
21:29of
21:29the
21:30convention.
21:32The
21:33sixth
21:33issue
21:34considered
21:35in the
21:35judgment
21:36relates
21:36to
21:36article
21:363
21:37of
21:37the
21:37convention
21:38and
21:38more
21:39specifically
21:39the
21:40sentencing
21:40of the
21:41applicant
21:41to
21:41aggravated
21:42life
21:42imprisonment.
21:44The
21:44judgment
21:44refers to
21:46the
21:46court's
21:46established
21:47case law
21:47which
21:48states
21:48that
21:48an
21:49irreversible
21:50life
21:50sentence
21:51is
21:52incompatible
21:53with
21:53article
21:533
21:54if
21:55there
21:55is
21:55no
21:56genuine
21:56prospect
21:57of
21:57release
21:57and
21:58no
21:58mechanism
21:58to
21:59review
21:59the
21:59sentence
22:00based
22:00on
22:00the
22:01prisoner's
22:01personal
22:02development
22:02or
22:03continued
22:03dangerousness.
22:06The
22:06judgment
22:07therefore
22:07concludes
22:07that
22:08the
22:08aggravated
22:09life
22:09sentence
22:09imposed
22:09on the
22:10applicant's
22:10amounts
22:10to a
22:11violation
22:11of
22:11article
22:123
22:12of
22:12the
22:12convention.
22:14The
22:15judgment
22:16holds
22:16that
22:16given
22:17the
22:18findings
22:18above
22:19and
22:19the
22:19close
22:20connection
22:20between
22:20the
22:20complaints
22:21raised,
22:22there
22:23is
22:23no
22:23need
22:24to
22:24examine
22:25the
22:25admissibility
22:25or
22:25merits
22:26of the
22:26applicants
22:27over
22:27complaints.
22:29An
22:30important
22:30part of
22:31the
22:31judgment
22:31concerns
22:32article
22:3341
22:33and
22:3446
22:34of the
22:35convention.
22:35under
22:37article
22:3741
22:38the
22:39judgment
22:39awards
22:39the
22:40applicant
22:40just
22:40satisfaction
22:41in
22:41respect
22:41of
22:42non
22:42pecuniary
22:43damage
22:43as well
22:43as
22:44costs
22:44and
22:44expenses.
22:46The
22:47section
22:47of
22:49article
22:4946
22:50is
22:50particularly
22:51significant
22:52as
22:53it
22:54indicates
22:54both
22:55individual
22:56and
22:57general
22:57measures.
23:01Firstly,
23:03the
23:04judgment
23:04states
23:04that
23:05in
23:06accordance
23:06with
23:07article
23:0795
23:08of
23:09the
23:09Constitution,
23:10article
23:1146
23:11of
23:11the
23:11convention
23:12is
23:12of
23:13constitution
23:13of
23:14the
23:14EU
23:14inter
23:14CA.
23:15Therefore,
23:17the
23:18obligation
23:18to
23:18execute
23:19the
23:19court
23:19judgments
23:20is
23:21not
23:21only
23:21a
23:21matter
23:22of
23:22international
23:22law,
23:23but
23:23also
23:24a
23:24binding
23:25requirement
23:25of
23:26the
23:26wall
23:26of
23:26law
23:26as
23:26set
23:27out
23:27in
23:28article
23:282
23:28of
23:29the
23:29Constitution.
23:32Secondly,
23:33with
23:34regard to
23:35individual
23:35measures,
23:37the
23:37judgment
23:37finds
23:38that
23:38if
23:39the
23:39applicant's
23:40detention
23:40were to
23:41continue
23:42after the
23:42present
23:43judgment,
23:43this
23:44would
23:44constitute
23:45an
23:45extension
23:46of the
23:47violations
23:47already
23:47established,
23:49particularly
23:49the
23:50violation
23:50of
23:50article 5,
23:51paragraph 1.
23:52Given the
23:53gravity of the
23:54established
23:54violations,
23:55the judgment
23:56states
23:56that
23:57the
23:58respondent
23:59state
23:59must
24:00ensure
24:01the
24:01applicant's
24:02release
24:02as
24:03soon
24:03as
24:03possible.
24:06The
24:07judgment
24:07further
24:07emphasizes
24:08that
24:08where
24:09possible,
24:10the
24:10applicant
24:11should
24:11be
24:11placed
24:12in
24:12the
24:12position
24:13he
24:13would
24:14have
24:14been
24:14in
24:14had
24:15the
24:15convention
24:16not
24:16been
24:16violated.
24:18In
24:19this
24:19regard,
24:20it
24:20states
24:21that
24:21under
24:22the
24:22convention
24:22law,
24:23the
24:24applicant's
24:24criminal
24:25conviction
24:25should
24:26be
24:26regarded
24:27as
24:27null
24:27and
24:28void.
24:28It
24:30also
24:30noted
24:30that
24:31the
24:32reopening
24:32of
24:32proceedings
24:33following
24:33a
24:33final
24:34judgment
24:34finding
24:35of
24:35violation
24:35of
24:36the
24:36convention
24:36is
24:37provided
24:37by
24:38domestic
24:39law
24:39and
24:39that
24:40all
24:40appropriate
24:41measures
24:41to
24:42eliminate
24:42the
24:43consequences
24:44of the
24:44violations
24:44found
24:45must
24:46be
24:46adopted
24:46by
24:47the
24:47respondent
24:47state.
24:49Thirdly,
24:51regarding
24:51general
24:52measures,
24:53the
24:54judgment
24:54concludes
24:54that
24:55the
24:56case
24:56aligns
24:56a
24:56systemic
24:57issue
24:58and
24:58identify
24:59structural
25:00deficiencies
25:00impacting
25:01the
25:01independence
25:02and
25:02impartiality
25:03of the
25:03judiciary,
25:04particularly
25:05in
25:06politically
25:06sensitive
25:07cases.
25:08The
25:09judgment
25:09therefore
25:09stresses
25:10the need
25:11to
25:11strengthen
25:12institutional
25:12safeguards
25:13against
25:14and due
25:14pressure on
25:15judges.
25:15It also
25:16highlights
25:17the importance
25:17of preventing
25:18the misuse
25:19of criminal
25:20proceedings
25:21for purposes
25:21unrelated to
25:23the proper
25:23administration
25:24of justice,
25:24particularly
25:26through the
25:27excessive
25:28use of
25:28pretrial
25:29detention,
25:30broad
25:30criminal
25:31classifications
25:31and
25:32successive
25:33prosecutions.
25:34Lastly,
25:36the judgment
25:37emphasizes the
25:38importance of
25:38full and
25:39prompt
25:40compliance with
25:41the judgments
25:42of both
25:42the court
25:43and the
25:44constitutional
25:44court.
25:45In light of
25:47its findings
25:47under
25:48Article 3,
25:49it also
25:49notes the
25:50existence of
25:51further
25:52systemic
25:52problem
25:53concerning
25:53life
25:54sentences
25:54without
25:55the
25:55possibility
25:56of
25:56release
25:57in
25:57decay.
25:58The
25:58judgment
25:59indicates
25:59that
26:00this
26:00issue
26:01requires
26:02appropriate
26:02legislative
26:03measures.
26:05Having
26:06explained
26:06the court's
26:07reasoning,
26:07I will
26:07now read
26:08the
26:08operative
26:08provisions
26:09of the
26:09judgment.
26:14The
26:15court
26:20dismisses
26:21by a
26:22majority
26:23the
26:24government's
26:25preliminary
26:26objection
26:26concerning
26:27non-exhaustion
26:28of the
26:28individual
26:29application
26:29before the
26:30constitutional
26:30court.
26:32Point
26:32two
26:34declares
26:34by a
26:36majority
26:36the
26:37complaints
26:37concerning
26:38Article 3,
26:39absence of
26:39a mechanism
26:40to review
26:40the sentence
26:41of a
26:41go-to-drive
26:42imprisonment.
26:43Five,
26:43paragraph
26:44one,
26:45six,
26:45paragraph
26:46one,
26:46and three
26:47d,
26:48independence
26:48and the
26:49partiality
26:49of the
26:49court,
26:50fairness
26:50of the
26:50proceedings
26:51restrictions
26:51of the
26:52right
26:52of the
26:52defense.
26:53Ten,
26:54eleven,
26:55and eighteen
26:55taken in
26:56conjunction
26:56with
26:57Article 5,
26:58one,
26:58six,
26:58one,
26:59ten,
26:59and eleven
27:00admissible.
27:02Point
27:03three
27:04declares
27:04by a
27:05majority
27:06the
27:06complaint
27:06concerning
27:06the
27:07length
27:07of
27:07proceedings
27:08in
27:09admissible.
27:11Point
27:11four
27:12holds
27:13by
27:14fifteen
27:14votes
27:14to
27:15two
27:15that
27:16there
27:17has
27:17been
27:17a
27:17violation
27:17of
27:18article
27:18ten
27:18and
27:19eleven
27:19of
27:20the
27:20convention.
27:21Point
27:21five
27:22holds
27:23by
27:23fifteen
27:24votes
27:24to
27:24two
27:25that
27:26has
27:26been
27:26a
27:27violation
27:27of
27:27article
27:27six
27:29paragraph
27:29one
27:29of the
27:30convention
27:30in
27:31respect
27:31of the
27:31complaints
27:32concerning the
27:33independence
27:33and the
27:34partiality
27:34of the
27:34court,
27:35the
27:35fairness
27:35of the
27:36proceedings
27:36and the
27:38restrictions
27:38on the
27:39rights
27:39of the
27:39defense.
27:40Point
27:41six
27:41holds
27:42by
27:43fifteen
27:43votes
27:44to
27:44two
27:44that
27:45has
27:45been
27:45a
27:45violation
27:46of
27:46article
27:46five
27:47paragraph
27:47one
27:47of
27:47the
27:47convention.
27:49Point
27:50seven
27:50holds
27:51by
27:52fifteen
27:52votes
27:52to
27:52two
27:53that
27:53has
27:53been
27:54a
27:54violation
27:54of
27:55article
27:55eighteen
27:56of
27:56the
27:56convention
27:57taken
27:57in
27:58conjunction
27:58with
27:59article
27:59five
28:00paragraph
28:00one
28:00six
28:01paragraph
28:01one
28:01ten
28:02and
28:02eleven
28:03of
28:03the
28:03convention.
28:04Point
28:05eight
28:06holds
28:07by
28:07fifteen
28:07votes
28:08to
28:08two
28:08that
28:09has
28:09been
28:09a
28:09violation
28:10of
28:10article
28:10three
28:10of
28:11the
28:11convention
28:11in respect of the complaint concerning the absence of a mechanism
28:15to review the sentence of aggravated life imprisonment.
28:19Point nine holds unanimously that there is no need
28:25to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints
28:27under Article three, the applicant's continued detention,
28:31five, paragraph four, six, paragraph two,
28:37and Article seven taken separately or in conjunction
28:41with Article 18 of the Convention.
28:45I will not read out the remaining operative provisions,
28:48namely points 10 and 11, which relate to just satisfaction
28:52in the individual and general measures.
28:55It is sufficient to note that the judgment awards,
28:59the applicant's compensation for the non-peculary damage
29:02suffered as a result of the violations identifying the case,
29:07and sets out the aforementioned individual and general measures.
29:13Following this hearing, the full text of the judgment
29:17will be published on the court's website
29:19and made available in the E-Doc database
29:21in both English and French.
29:24A legal summary and a press release prepared by the Registry
29:27will also be available.
29:29I now declare the public hearing closed.
29:37is
30:05written
30:06in