PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 29680/05) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Abdurrahman Dilipak (“the applicant”), on 22 July 2005.

The applicant was represented by Mr S. Döğücü, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 8 April 2009 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Istanbul. He is a professional writer and journalist, and states that he is a human rights activist.

He published an article on the front page of issue 84 of the weekly magazine Türkiye’de Cuma (“Friday in Turkey”), which came out on 29 August 2003. His article, which was entitled “If the pashas [the generals] refuse to obey”, contained criticisms of high-ranking officers who were about to retire. He hinted that some generals in the armed forces were wont to sound false alarms concerning an alleged advance of fundamentalism and anti-secularism, which they then used as a pretext for interfering in the country’s general politics, and that they appeared to have links with certain business circles, the media, senior civil servants and even the Mafia, endeavouring to create a political atmosphere that tallied with their worldview. He suggested that the high-ranking officers in question should set up a political party on retirement and present their political projects to the people, instead of “deciding on the future of the nation on their own, in the name of the nation”. He added that in his view the army generals who he claimed were interfering in the country’s general politics were far removed from social realities and that in their approach to social affairs they lacked any empathy with and sensitivity towards the various social strata.

By an indictment of 9 January 2004, the Military Prosecutor’s Office with the Third Army Corps in Istanbul applied to the Military Court within that Corps for the applicant’s prosecution under Article 95 §§ 4 and 5 of the Military Criminal Code, which, in the Prosecutor’s view, penalised acts vis-à-vis high-ranking military officers geared to damaging hierarchical relations within the army and undermining confidence in commanding officers.

The applicant submitted an objection as to the jurisdiction of the Military Court to try him, on the grounds of his civilian status and relying on the Convention and his right to freedom of expression.

By a decision of 12 July 2004 the Military Court declined jurisdiction in favour of the Bakırköy Assize Court on the grounds that the offence at issue was not military in nature and the applicant should be tried by the non-military courts for denigration of the State armed forces, which offence was punishable under Article 159 of the former Criminal Code. The Military Court noted that by claiming that the armed forces were led by commanding officers who appeared to have links with certain business circles and even the Mafia, and to be far removed from social realities, the applicant had tarnished the image of the whole armed forces. It emphasised that the commanding officers who had been criticised were plenipotentiary representatives of the armed forces empowered to act on behalf of the latter.

On 9 August 2004 the commanding officer of the Third Army Corps lodged an appeal on points of law against the aforementioned decision to decline jurisdiction. He submitted that the impugned article constituted an act which had to be assessed under Article 95 § 4 of the Military Criminal Code. He argued that the military criminal provision in question constituted a lex specialis vis-à-vis Article 159 of the Criminal Code.

The Military Prosecutor also lodged an appeal on points of law on the same grounds, submitting that the Military Courts should have jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, and that the applicant had not targeted all the armed forces but had undeniably tarnished the image of two Generals, which was liable to undermine the confidence of the rank-and-file in these officers and thus damage hierarchical relations within the armed forces.

The applicant was not apprised of the appeals on points of law lodged by the commanding officer and the Military Prosecutor, both of which were added to the case file.

On 3 May 2005 the Military Court of Cassation, which assessed the appeals on points of law, quashed the decision declining jurisdiction and referred the case back to the Military Court. In its reasoning the Court of Cassation mentioned the need to reclassify the facts and to assess them under Article 95 § 4 of the Military Criminal Code. It specified that the provisions of Article 95 § 4 of the Military Criminal Code and (the former) Article 159 of the Criminal Code shared the same substantive and moral elements, but differed in providing protection for individuals (Article 95 § 4) and the Institution itself (Article 159), respectively. The Military Court of Cassation held that even though the applicant’s article had comprised elements of both the aforementioned criminal offences, the general tenor of the impugned article had apparently concentrated on the behaviour of two specific Generals rather than the overall armed forces. Therefore, the accusation that the officers were disobedient, that is to say that they lacked discipline, was liable to undermine the lower ranks’ confidence in them and thus damage hierarchical relations within the armed forces.

By a judgment of 1 March 2006 the Military Court of First Instance, having reconsidered the case, once again decline jurisdiction in favour of the non-military courts. It stated that new legislation on the press attributed to the non-military criminal courts jurisdiction to hear and determine offences committed via the press and specified that such offences no longer came under special legislation.

On 24 March 2006 the commanding officer of the Third Army Corps lodged a fresh appeal on points of law against the Military Court’s decision declining jurisdiction. He pointed out that the 3 May 2005 judgment of the Military Court of Cassation had been delivered after the amendment to the legislation in question and that the provisions of the Military Criminal Code (Law No. 353) enabling civilians to be tried by military courts had not been amended.

While the case was still pending before the Military Court of Cassation, Law No. 5530 of 29 June 2006 made a series of amendments to the Military Criminal Code, inter alia abolishing military court jurisdiction for trying civilians for offences such as those with which the applicant was charged. The Prosecutor with the Military Court of Cassation therefore referred the applicant’s file to the Military Court of First Instance, accompanied by an opinion to the effect that the military courts had no jurisdiction in such matters.

By a judgment of 14 November 2006 the military court once again decline jurisdiction and referred the case to the Bağcılar 2nd Criminal Court.

Meanwhile, following the merger of the Bağcılar and Bakırköy judicial districts, the case was referred to the Bakırköy 24th Criminal Court. By a judgment of 11 March 2008, the latter court declined jurisdiction and referred the case to the Bakırköy 2nd Criminal Court, which held jurisdiction for offences committed via the press. By a judgment of 26 May 2008, the Bakırköy 2nd Criminal Court referred the case to the Bakırköy 16th Criminal Court on the grounds that that court was the former Bağcılar 2nd Criminal Court. By a judgment of 12 March 2009 the Bakırköy 16th Criminal Court referred a jurisdictional dispute to the Bakırköy Assize Court. Finally, the Bakırköy Assize Court decided in favour of the Bakırköy 2nd Criminal Court in the jurisdictional dispute, and referred the case to that court.

By a judgment of 9 June 2010 the Bakırköy 2nd criminal court declared the proceedings statute-barred under Article 95 § 4 of the Military Criminal Code. ...
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e1
001-157399_a10_em1
CODE
DIRECT
29680/05
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-157399_a10_e2
001-157399_a10_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Turkey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e3
001-157399_a10_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Turkish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e4
001-157399_a10_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Abdurrahman Dilipak
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e5
001-157399_a10_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
22 July 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e6
001-157399_a10_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Döğücü
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e7
001-157399_a10_em7
LOC
QUASI
Istanbul
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e8
001-157399_a10_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
Turkish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e9
001-157399_a10_em9
DATETIME
QUASI
8 April 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e10
001-157399_a10_em10
DATETIME
QUASI
1949
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e7
001-157399_a10_em11
LOC
QUASI
Istanbul
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-157399_a10_e11
001-157399_a10_em12
DEM
QUASI
professional writer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-157399_a10_e12
001-157399_a10_em13
DEM
QUASI
journalist
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-157399_a10_e13
001-157399_a10_em14
DEM
QUASI
human rights activist
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-157399_a10_e14
001-157399_a10_em15
CODE
QUASI
issue 84
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-157399_a10_e15
001-157399_a10_em16
MISC
QUASI
weekly magazine Türkiye’de Cuma (“Friday in Turkey”)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e16
001-157399_a10_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
29 August 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e17
001-157399_a10_em18
MISC
QUASI
If the pashas [the generals] refuse to obey
POLITICS
insert
001-157399_a10_e18
001-157399_a10_em19
MISC
NO_MASK
He hinted that some generals in the armed forces were wont to sound false alarms concerning an alleged advance of fundamentalism and anti-secularism, which they then used as a pretext for interfering in the country’s general politics, and that they appeared to have links with certain business circles, the media, senior civil servants and even the Mafia, endeavouring to create a political atmosphere that tallied with their worldview. He suggested that the high-ranking officers in question should set up a political party on retirement and present their political projects to the people, instead of “deciding on the future of the nation on their own, in the name of the nation”. He added that in his view the army generals who he claimed were interfering in the country’s general politics were far removed from social realities and that in their approach to social affairs they lacked any empathy with and sensitivity towards the various social strata.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e19
001-157399_a10_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
9 January 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e20
001-157399_a10_em21
ORG
QUASI
Military Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-157399_a10_e21
001-157399_a10_em22
ORG
QUASI
Third Army Corps in Istanbul
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e7
001-157399_a10_em23
LOC
QUASI
Istanbul
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e22
001-157399_a10_em24
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e23
001-157399_a10_em25
ORG
QUASI
Corps
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e22
001-157399_a10_em26
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e24
001-157399_a10_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
12 July 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e22
001-157399_a10_em28
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e25
001-157399_a10_em29
ORG
QUASI
Bakırköy Assize Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e22
001-157399_a10_em30
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Court
POLITICS
insert
001-157399_a10_e26
001-157399_a10_em31
MISC
NO_MASK
have links with certain business circles and even the Mafia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e27
001-157399_a10_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
9 August 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-157399_a10_e28
001-157399_a10_em33
ORG
QUASI
Third Army Corps
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e29
001-157399_a10_em34
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Prosecutor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e30
001-157399_a10_em35
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Courts
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e29
001-157399_a10_em36
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Prosecutor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e31
001-157399_a10_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
3 May 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e32
001-157399_a10_em38
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e22
001-157399_a10_em39
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e33
001-157399_a10_em40
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e32
001-157399_a10_em41
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e34
001-157399_a10_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
1 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e35
001-157399_a10_em43
ORG
QUASI
Military Court of First Instance
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e36
001-157399_a10_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
24 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e28
001-157399_a10_em45
ORG
QUASI
Third Army Corps
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e37
001-157399_a10_em46
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Court’s
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e31
001-157399_a10_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
3 May 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e32
001-157399_a10_em48
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e32
001-157399_a10_em49
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e38
001-157399_a10_em50
DATETIME
NO_MASK
29 June 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e32
001-157399_a10_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
Military Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e35
001-157399_a10_em52
ORG
QUASI
Military Court of First Instance
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e39
001-157399_a10_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
14 November 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e40
001-157399_a10_em54
ORG
QUASI
Bağcılar 2nd Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-157399_a10_e41
001-157399_a10_em55
ORG
QUASI
Bağcılar and Bakırköy judicial districts
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e42
001-157399_a10_em56
ORG
QUASI
Bakırköy 24th Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e43
001-157399_a10_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
11 March 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e44
001-157399_a10_em58
ORG
QUASI
Bakırköy 2nd Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e45
001-157399_a10_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
26 May 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e44
001-157399_a10_em60
ORG
QUASI
Bakırköy 2nd Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e46
001-157399_a10_em61
ORG
QUASI
Bakırköy 16th Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e40
001-157399_a10_em62
ORG
QUASI
Bağcılar 2nd Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e47
001-157399_a10_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
12 March 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e46
001-157399_a10_em64
ORG
QUASI
Bakırköy 16th Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-157399_a10_e25
001-157399_a10_em65
ORG
QUASI
Bakırköy Assize Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e25
001-157399_a10_em66
ORG
QUASI
Bakırköy Assize Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e44
001-157399_a10_em67
ORG
QUASI
Bakırköy 2nd Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e48
001-157399_a10_em68
DATETIME
QUASI
9 June 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-157399_a10_e49
001-157399_a10_em69
ORG
QUASI
Bakırköy 2nd criminal court
Abdurrahman Dilipak
TUR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Abdurrahman Dilipak