issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 026 (2018)

23.01.2018

Judgments of 23 January 2018

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven Chamber judgments¹which

are summarised below:

The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*)

Faludy-Kovács v. Hungary (application no. 20487/13)

The applicant, Katalin Fatime Faludy-Kovács, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1975 and lives

in Budapest.

The case concerned her complaint that the Hungarian courts had refused to award her

compensation for damage to her reputation after she had brought legal action over a newspaper

headline.

In 2008 a newspaper published an article about the applicant, the widow of György Faludy, who was

a well-known poet, and her family plans, which involved other relatives of her late husband. She

began court proceedings over the headline, which said “Trampling on the memory of Faludy. The

widow does everything for the limelight”. Her damages claim was rejected in 2011 by the court of

appeal, which found that the statement was a value judgment and not a statement of fact.

In her complaint she relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European

Convention on Human Rights.

No violation of Article 8

Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary (no. 201/17)

The applicant, Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt, is a political party registered in Budapest (Hungary).

The case concerned the party’s complaint about domestic court findings that a mobile telephone

application it had developed to allow voters to show and comment on invalid ballots cast during a

2016 referendum on European Union migrant relocation plans had broken election rules.

Voters could use the app to post anonymous photographs of invalid ballot papers and comments on

reasons for how they cast their ballots. Following a complaint by a private individual, the National

Election Commission fined the party after finding that the app broke rules on fair elections, voting

secrecy and the proper exercise of rights.

The Kúria ultimately only upheld the decision on the proper exercise of rights and reduced the fine.

A complaint to the Constitutional Court was deemed inadmissible.

The applicant party complained under Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European

Convention.

Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber

judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a

panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and

deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the

Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.

Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

Violation of Article 10

Just satisfaction: 330 euros (EUR) (pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,000 (costs and expenses)

Kuchta v. Poland (no. 58683/08)*

The applicant, Arkadiusz Kuchta, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Barczewo

(Poland).

The case concerned criminal proceedings leading to Mr Kuchta’s conviction for complicity in the use

of forgeries.

Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial / right to the examination of witnesses), Mr

Kuchta complained that the trial court had not allowed his defence to put questions to one of his co-

defendants, whose statements had been, according to him, the main evidence used for his

conviction.

Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)

Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 600 (costs and expenses)

Akarsubaşı and Alçiçek v. Turkey (no. 19620/12)*

The applicants, Mehmet Akarsubaşı and Yalçın Alçiçek, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1967.

They are civil servants and members of the local branch of Eǧitim-Sen (Eǧitim ve Bilim Emekçiler

Sendikası, a trade union for education and science).

The case concerned the fining of Mr Akarsubaşı and Mr Alçiçek for hanging a strike notice on the

outside wall of a secondary school indicating “Workplace on Strike”, on a day of national

mobilisation organised in December 2011.

Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants notably

alleged that the fines had breached their right to freedom of assembly.

Violation of Article 11

Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just

satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It further awarded EUR 200

to Mr Akarsubaşı and EUR 60 to Mr Alçiçek for pecuniary damage.

Güç v. Turkey (no. 15374/11)

The applicant, Yaşar Güç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Giresun (Turkey).

The case concerned his complaint about his dismissal from the civil service after the alleged

harassment of a nine-year-old school girl in 2006. He was working at the time as a caretaker at an

education centre.

In 2008 he was acquitted of sexual offence charges related to the incident. In the meantime, he had

been dismissed from his job for harassment, a decision which the Supreme Administrative Court

ultimately upheld in 2009, without any mention of the acquittal.

Relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), Mr Güç complained about his dismissal and the

reasoning employed by the administrative courts when reviewing that decision.

No violation of Article 6 § 2

İzzet Çelik v. Turkey (no. 15185/05)

The applicant, İzzet Çelik, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Kırıkkale (Turkey).

The case concerned Mr Çelik’s complaint about the fairness of his 2002 conviction and jail sentence

for involvement in separatist activities.

Mr Çelik was arrested in 1998 and detained on suspicion of being a member of an illegal

organisation. He was subsequently charged with involvement in separatist activities and in 2002 he

was convicted by the Istanbul State Security Court and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. The

judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation in 2003.

He relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time; independence

and impartiality of the state security court) and Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance). He

complained inter alia about the presence of a military judge in some early hearings and a lack of

access to legal representation during the preliminary investigation.

No violation of Article 6 § 1 – concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the Istanbul

State Security Court

Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 – on account of the lack of legal

assistance available during the preliminary investigation

Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction

for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Çelik. It further awarded him EUR 1,000 for costs and

expenses.

Seven v. Turkey (no. 60392/08)

The applicant, Hamit Seven, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Ankara (Turkey).

The case concerned his dismissal from the police force after a rape allegation, although he had been

cleared of all charges.

In 2002, while working as a chief police officer in Ankara, he was accused of rape and abuse of

authority. Disciplinary and criminal proceedings were begun simultaneously. He was acquitted by

the Ankara Assize Court in 2005. By that time, however, he had been dismissed from the police

force. A 2006 appeal review by the Supreme Administrative Court refused to annul his dismissal.

Relying on Article 6 § 2 (right to presumption of innocence), Mr Seven complained about being

dismissed while the criminal proceedings had still been going on and about the administrative

courts’ refusal to cancel that decision once he had been cleared of the charges.

Violation of Article 6 § 2

Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction

for any non-pecuniary damage Mr Seven may have sustained. It further awarded him EUR 2,850 for

costs and expenses.

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,

judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive

the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter

@ECHR_Press.

Press contacts

echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)