[ad_1]
The ECHR gave its decision on the requests of Fetullah Gülen, the leader of the fethullahist organization.
Gülen, through his lawyer, addressed the ECHR, claiming that his right to a fair trial was violated by the rejection by the court of his requests for denial of news published in some newspapers about him and the organization in 2015.
Furthermore, Gülen argued that his right to a fair trial was violated because his individual requests, which he presented and were declared unacceptable, were combined and evaluated by the Constitutional Court and included insufficient justifications, and that he was not provided with an impartial remedy, independent and effective that offers a chance of success against court decisions. alleged discrimination against.
The ECHR, which examined the requests in combination, evaluated the part of the request related to the allegation of violation of the right to a fair trial with the rejection of the requests by the courts in the area of the right to protection of privacy .
The ECHR, taking into account the decisions of the Constitutional Court, noted that Gülen did not file a claim for compensation and filed a criminal complaint against the articles in question.
“COMPENSATION AND CRIMINAL LAW PROVIDE SUFFICIENT COVERAGE”
Concluding that the Turkish compensation and criminal law provided sufficient safeguards to protect the plaintiff’s personal rights, but that the plaintiff had not attempted these remedies with respect to the articles containing serious allegations against him, the Court found that this part of the claim was inadmissible because domestic remedies were not exhausted.
Deciding that the decision of the Constitutional Court on the individual requests was not unfounded, the ECHR considered that the allegation that the right to a fair trial was violated because the individual requests were combined and evaluated by the Constitutional Court and contained no justification Enough, he rejected the part of the application on this matter.
The ECHR also found that the allegation that the courts were not impartial and independent was clearly unfounded, and Gülen’s claims that he was discriminated against in the processes that are the subject of the lawsuit and that he was not provided with an effective remedy were inadmissible for not having exhausted domestic remedies.
