Text rozhodnutí
Datum rozhodnutí
Rozhodovací formace
Číslo stížnosti / sp. zn.




Application no. 38803/02
by Davut UÇAR
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B.M. Zupančič, President,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr C. Bîrsan,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mr David Thór Björgvinsson,
Mrs I. Ziemele, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 October 2002,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:


The applicant, Mr Davut Uçar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Diyarbakır. He was represented before the Court by Mr İ. Bilmez and Mr Okan Yılmaz, lawyers practising in Istanbul.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was the Diyarbakır representative of a newspaper “Yeniden Özgür Gündem” (“Özgür Gündem Once Again”).

On 16 August 2002, two weeks before publishing the first issue, the applicant requested permission from the Diyarbakır Governor to put publicity posters of the newspaper all around the city center. The poster consisted of the photo of a group of demonstrators and a writing which stated “This Gündem is yours – Now the public has a Gündem (“Agenda”) also! – the daily newspaper will hit the newsstands shortly”.

On 28 August 2002 the Diyarbakır Governor refused the applicant’s request, in accordance with Article 11 (e) of the Law no 2935 on the state of emergency.

On 2 September 2002 the first issue of the newspaper was published and distributed in the region.

On 9 September 2002 the Governor prohibited the distribution of the newspaper in the state of emergency region. The decision was served on the applicant on the same day.

On 23 September 2002 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s Office, requesting to be informed about the reasoning behind the decision of 28 August 2002. He was not given any reply to his petition.


The applicant complained that the authorities did not respect the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention.

He complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he did not have access to a court to challenge the decision of the Governor. Moreover he alleged that he was not presumed innocent as the Governor banned the distribution of the posters and the newspapers without giving any reasons and without relying on any judicial decision. He also alleged a violation of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention as there was nothing in his acts which constituted a criminal offence under domestic law.

The applicant alleged that the authorities had unjustifiably interfered with his right to freedom of thought and his right to freedom of expression guaranteed respectively under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy at his disposal by which he could challenge the lawfulness of the Governor’s decision.

He also complained of the violation of Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with his other Convention grievances.

He further contended under Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention that his rights guaranteed by the Convention were violated; that no legal measure was taken to prevent these violations and that his right to enjoy his aforesaid rights was limited unjustifiably. Moreover, he alleged under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the authorities have interfered with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in that he has been unable to market or sell the issues of the newspaper and has therefore been deprived of revenue.


Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints on 25 May 2006. On 9 June 2006 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he has failed to respond to a registered letter dated 6 September 2006, warning him of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list if he did not reply.

Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of this application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President