echr etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
echr etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

Case of Ahmet Atahür Söyler v. Turkey

Kader Kadem | 07:25 | 0 Comments
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 Ahmet Atahür SöylerCase of Ahmet Atahür Söyler v. Turkey (Application no. 29411/07)
JUDGMENT (17 September 2013)
STRASBOURG

PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 29411/07) 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 Ahmet Atahür Söyler (“the applicant”), on 12 July 2007.

2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr Serkan Cengiz, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that his inability to vote in the general elections while he was serving a prison sentence was in violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (hereinafter “Article 3 of Protocol No. 1”).

4. On 31 March 2010 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in İzmir.

6. The applicant, a businessman, was convicted for having drawn a number of cheques without having sufficient funds in his bank account, an offence defined in the now repealed Law No. 3167 on Cheques (see “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice”). He was sentenced to a prison term of four years, eleven months and twenty-six days. He started serving his sentence on 11 April 2007.

7. While he was serving his prison sentence in Buca Prison in İzmir, the applicant wrote to the High Council for Elections on 28 June 2007 and stated that his name was on the electoral roll for the forthcoming general elections of 22 July 2007. He added that this was possibly due to an error on the part of the High Council for Elections which must have overlooked the fact that he, as a convicted prisoner, was unable to vote. Referring to the judgment in the case of Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC] (no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005‑IX) the applicant requested that he should nevertheless be allowed to cast his vote in the July 2007 elections. He added that the right to vote was a right guaranteed in, inter alia, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. He argued that the Hirst judgment, when read in conjunction with section 90 of the Constitution (see “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice” below), meant that the High Council for Elections was under an obligation to make the necessary arrangements in order to enable him to vote.

8. On 29 June 2007 the High Council for Elections replied to the applicant’s letter, and informed him that pursuant to section 7 § 3 of Law No. 298 (see “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice” below) it was not possible for him to vote. The High Council for Elections added that it was in the process of correcting its records to reflect the applicant’s status as a convicted prisoner.

9. A similarly worded letter was sent to the applicant by the Chairman of the High Council for Elections on 2 July 2007.

10. On 22 July 2007 general elections took place and the applicant was unable to cast his vote.

11. Although the applicant’s prison sentence was to end on 1 April 2012, he was released from prison on probation on 9 April 2009 pursuant to Law No. 647 for good behaviour (see “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice” below). However, in accordance with the applicable legislation, the applicant’s inability to vote continued until 1 April 2012.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
12. Relevant parts of the Turkish Constitution provide as follows:
“Section 67:

In conformity with the conditions set forth in the law, citizens have the right to vote, to be elected, and to engage in political activities independently or in a political party, and to take part in a referendum.

Elections and referenda shall be held under the direction and supervision of the judiciary, in accordance with the principles of free, equal, secret, and direct, universal suffrage, and public counting of the votes. However, the conditions under which the Turkish citizens who are abroad shall be able to exercise their right to vote, are regulated by law.

All Turkish citizens over 18 years of age shall have the right to vote in elections and to take part in referenda.

The exercise of these rights shall be regulated by law.
Privates and corporals serving in the armed services, students in military schools, and convicts in prisons excluding those convicted of negligent offences cannot vote. The High Council for Elections shall determine the measures to be taken to ensure the safety of the counting of votes when detainees in penal institutions or prisons vote; such voting is done under the on-site direction and supervision of authorized judge. The electoral laws shall be drawn up in such a way as to reconcile the principles of fair representation and consistency in administration.

The amendments made in the electoral laws shall not be applied to the elections to be held within the year from when the amendments come into force.

Section 90:
International agreements duly put into effect bear the force of law. No appeal to the Constitutional Court shall be made with regard to these agreements, on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. In the case of a conflict between international agreements in the area of fundamental rights and freedoms duly put into effect and the domestic laws due to differences in provisions on the same matter, the provisions of international agreements shall prevail.”

13. Section 7 of the Law on Basic Provisions Concerning Elections and on Registers of Voters (Law No. 298 of 1961) provides as follows:
The following persons cannot vote:
(1) Privates, corporals and sergeants performing their military service (this provision is applicable also to those on leave, whatever the reason for their leave),
(2) Students in military schools,
(3) Convicts in penitentiary establishments.”

14. Relevant provisions of section 53 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 5237 of 2004) provide as follows:
“(1) As the statutory consequence of imposition of a prison sentence for an offence committed intentionally, the person shall be deprived of the following [rights]:
a) Undertaking of permanent or temporary public duties, including membership of the Turkish National Assembly and all civil service and other duties which are offered through election or appointment by the State, city councils, town councils, village councils, or organisations controlled or supervised by them;
b) Voting, standing for election and enjoying all other political rights;
c) Exercising custodial rights as a parent; performing duties as a guardian or a trustee;
d) Chairing or auditing foundations, associations, unions, companies, cooperatives and political parties;

e) Performing a self-employed profession which is subject to regulation by public organisations or by chambers of commerce which have public status.
(2) The person cannot enjoy the [above-mentioned] rights until the completion of execution of the prison sentence to which he or she has been sentenced as a consequence of the commission of the offence.
(3) The provisions above which relate to the exercise of custodial rights as a parent, and duties as a guardian or a trustee shall not be applicable to the convicted person whose prison sentence is suspended or who is conditionally released from the prison. A decision may [also] be taken not to apply subsection 1 (e) above to a convict whose prison sentence is suspended.
(4) Sub-section 1 above shall not be applicable to persons whose short term prison sentence is suspended or to persons who were under the age of eighteen at the time of the commission of the offence.
(5) Where the person is sentenced for an offence committed by abusing one of the rights and powers mentioned in sub-section 1 above, a further prohibition of the enjoyment of the same right shall be imposed for a period equal to between a half and the whole length of the prison sentence.

15. According to section 49 § 2, a prison sentence for a period of less than one year shall be regarded as a short term prison sentence.

16. According to section 19 of the Law on the Execution of Punishments (Law No. 647) which was in force at the time of the calculation of the length of the applicant’s prison sentence, prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment could be conditionally released from prison for good behaviour after having served half of their sentences. However, for the purposes of section 53 (2) of the Criminal Code, the date of completion of the prison sentence is not the date of the conditional release, but the last day of the prison sentence handed down by the criminal court.

17. According to the Explanatory Report of the Criminal Code, the rationale behind section 53 of the Criminal Code is as follows:
“Society’s trust in the person is damaged on account of the offence committed by him or her. For that reason the convicted person is prevented from exercising certain rights which necessitate a relationship of trust...This deprivation cannot be indefinite. Since the rationale behind punishment is to ensure that the criminal comes to regret committing the offence and that he or she is reintroduced into society, deprivations imposed for the commission of the offence shall continue until the end of the execution of the punishment. Thus, the person will be behaving in accordance with the needs of the execution of his punishment and, when he has done so, he will be declaring to society that he has once again become a trustworthy person...”.

18. According to Law on Cheques (Law No. 5941) which entered into force on 20 December 2009 and which was amended by Law No. 6273 on 3 February 2012, drawing cheques without having sufficient funds in the bank account no longer carries a prison sentence. Instead, the person is prevented from having a cheque book until he has paid his debt together with its interest.

19. In its decision handed down in an unrelated case (decision no. 2006/11-183 E., 2006/216 K.) the Grand Chamber of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation held the following in relation to section 53 of the Criminal Code:
“...Although no mention was made of the restrictions mentioned in subsection 1 of section 53 of the Criminal Code in the judgment [convicting the appellant], [those] restrictions are the natural consequence of the conviction and do not have to be mentioned in the judgment for them to be applicable. Therefore, when [the judgment] is enforced, section 53 will be applied and the restrictions mentioned in subsection 1 (a-e) will come into play. Although after his conditional release from the prison the [appellant] will be able to exercise his powers [mentioned in 53 § 1 (c) of the Criminal Code], restrictions placed on his other rights will continue until his sentence has been executed fully...”.

III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS
20. A description of relevant international materials and comparative law can be found in Scoppola v. Italy (no. 3) [GC] (no. 126/05, §§ 40-60, 22 May 2012).

THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
21. The applicant argued that his disenfranchisement breached his rights guaranteed in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 which provides as follows:
“The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”

22. The Government contested the applicant’s arguments.

A. Admissibility
23. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits
24. The applicant complained that his disenfranchisement was in breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. He maintained that he had not only been unable to vote in the general elections held in July 2007 while he was being detained in the prison, but also in the general elections of 2011 held after his conditional release. The reason for this was that, even though he was conditionally released from prison on 9 April 2009, the official date for the completion of the execution of his sentence was 1 April 2012 (see paragraph 11 above).

25. The applicant submitted that he had been a businessman and owned a company at the beginning of the 2000s. He had been convicted as a result of several unpaid cheques which had been drawn by him when his business was affected by the severe economic crisis in Turkey which eventually bankrupted him. Thus, the offence committed by him did not mean that he was so morally or mentally untrustworthy as to be prevented from exercising his civic duties.

26. The applicant considered that the national legislation on disenfranchisement did not take into account the nature of the offence or the severity of the punishment. As such, it was wholly disproportionate in its application. The only criterion taken into account when imposing the ban was the element of “intention" in the commission of the offence.

27. Referring to the judgment in the case of Hirst (no. 2) [GC] (cited above, §§ 71 and 82), the applicant argued that he had been the victim of an automatic ban. Referring to the statistics issued by the Ministry of Justice, the applicant added that the blanket ban on voting did not reflect the principles of today’s democratic society, and affected a great proportion of the 80,448 convicted inmates in prisons in Turkey (November 2010 figures).
28. The Government acknowledged that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 guaranteed individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election, and that the applicant’s right to vote had been restricted in the present case.

29. The Government referred to the Explanatory Report of the Criminal Code where the rationale behind section 53 of the Criminal Code is set out (see § 17 above in “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice”), and submitted that the legitimate aim of the restriction was the applicant’s rehabilitation. They maintained that the restriction on the right to vote in Turkey was not a ‘blanket ban’ because the applicable legislation limited the scope of the restriction in accordance with the nature of the offence. Referring to the judgment in the case of Hirst (no. 2) [GC] (cited above), the Government argued that, unlike the situation in the United Kingdom, the Turkish legislation restricting the right to vote was only applicable to persons who has committed offences intentionally. In the United Kingdom the legislation was applicable to all convicted prisoners detained in prisons, irrespective of the length of their sentence, the nature or gravity of the offence, and their individual circumstances.

30. In Turkey the constitutional provisions concerning the issue of prisoners’ voting had undergone two amendments in 1995 and 2001. In 1995 the Constitution had been amended to exclude remand prisoners from the scope of the restriction because disenfranchising a person detained in prison pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him was considered incompatible with the principle of presumption of innocence. In the 2001 amendment, persons convicted of offences committed involuntarily had been excluded from the restrictions on voting. As it stood today, the national legislation was applicable only in respect of offences committed intentionally. In the opinion of the Government, the offences committed intentionally were “stronger” in nature as they included the element of “intention”.

31. The Court notes that the general principles applicable in the present case can be found in Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium (2 March 1987, § 46-54, Series A no. 113); Hirst (no. 2) ([GC], cited above, §§ 56-71, 74-77 and 82); Frodl v. Austria (no. 20201/04, §§ 28 and 33-35, 8 April 2010), and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 3) ([GC], cited above, §§ 82-84, 96, 99 and 101-102). The Court will examine the applicant’s complaints in the light of the principles identified in those judgments.

32. The Court observes at the outset that the applicant, who had been sentenced to a prison term of four years, eleven months and twenty-six days, began serving his sentence on 11 April 2007 (see paragraph 6 above). In accordance with the applicable legislation, his disenfranchisement did not end when he was conditionally released from prison on 9 April 2009, but continued until the initially foreseen date of release on 1 April 2012 (see paragraphs 11, 14 and 19 above). Between 11 April 2007 and 1 April 2012 two general elections were held and the applicant was unable to vote in either of them. Having thus established that the applicant was directly affected by the measure foreseen in the national legislation which prevented him from voting on two occasions, the Court will proceed to examine whether the measure in question pursued a legitimate aim and did so in a proportionate manner.

33. According to the Court’s established case-law referred to above, the rights enshrined in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are not absolute. There is room for implied limitations and the Contracting States must be afforded a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere. There are numerous ways of organising and running electoral systems and a wealth of differences, inter alia, in historical development, cultural diversity and political thought within Europe which it is for each Contracting State to mould into its own democratic vision (see Scoppola (no. 3) [GC], cited above, § 83 and the cases cited therein).

34. However, it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate. In particular, any conditions imposed must not thwart the free expression of the people in the choice of the legislature – in other words, they must reflect, or not run counter to, the concern to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of an electoral procedure aimed at identifying the will of the people through universal suffrage. Any departure from the principle of universal suffrage risks undermining the democratic validity of the legislature thus elected and the laws it promulgates. Exclusion of any groups or categories of the general population must accordingly be reconcilable with the underlying purposes of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (ibid. § 84 and the cases cited therein).

35. Furthermore, an indiscriminate restriction applicable automatically to prisoners, irrespective of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances, must be seen as falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation, however wide that margin might be, and as being incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (Hirst (no. 2) [GC], cited above, § 82).

36. As it appears from the relevant national provisions summarised above in the “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice”, persons convicted of having intentionally committed an offence are unable to vote. Moreover, their disenfranchisement does not come to an end on release from prison on probation, but continues until the end of the period of the original sentence handed down at the time of their conviction. In fact, pursuant to section 53 § 3 of the Criminal Code, even when a prison sentence which is longer than one year is suspended and the convicted person does not serve any time in the prison, he or she will still be unable to vote for the duration of the suspension of the sentence (see paragraph 14 above).

37. Having regard to the Government’s submission that the restrictions on the applicant’s right to vote pursued the aim of rehabilitating him, and having further regard to the rationale of section 53 of the Criminal Code set out in the Explanatory Report (see paragraph 17 above) relied on by the Government, the Court is prepared to accept, notwithstanding whatever doubt there may be as to the efficacy of achieving these aims through a bar on voting, that the restriction on the applicant’s right to vote pursued the aim of encouraging citizen-like conduct, and considers that that aim is not untenable or incompatible per se with the right guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (Hirst (no. 2) [GC], cited above, §§ 74-75).

38. In light of the above, and in so far as they are applicable to convicts who do not even serve a prison term, the Court considers that the restrictions placed on convicted prisoners’ voting rights in Turkey are harsher and more far-reaching than those applicable in the United Kingdom, Austria and Italy, which have been the subject matter of examination by the Court in its judgments in the above-mentioned cases of Hirst (no. 2) [GC], Frodl and Scoppola (no. 3) [GC].

39. Furthermore, although the removal of the right to vote without any ad hoc judicial decision is not among the essential criteria for determining the proportionality of a disenfranchisement measure (see Scoppola (no. 3) [GC], cited above, § 99) and it does not, in itself, give rise to a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (ibid, §§ 103-104), the intervention of a judge is in principle likely to guarantee the proportionality of restrictions on prisoners’ voting rights (ibid. § 99). In Turkey, disenfranchisement is an automatic consequence derived from the statute, and is therefore not left to the discretion or supervision of the judge.

40. Indeed, according to the Grand Chamber of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation which examined section 53 of the Criminal Code in another case (paragraph 19 above), the judgment convicting the person does not have to make a mention of the disenfranchisement for it to be applicable.

41. Moreover, unlike the situation in Italy which was examined by the Grand Chamber in its judgment in the case of Scoppola (no. 3), the measure restricting the right to vote in Turkey is indiscriminate in its application in that it does not take into account the nature or gravity of the offence, the length of the prison sentence ­– leaving aside the suspended sentences shorter than one year (see paragraph 14 above) – or the individual circumstances of the convicted persons. The Turkish legislation contains no express provisions categorising or specifying any offences for which disenfranchisement is foreseen (see, a contrario, Scoppola (no. 3) [GC], cited above, § 105).

42. The Court does not consider that the sole requirement of the element of “intent” in the commission of the offence is sufficient to lead it to conclude that the current legal framework adequately protects the rights in question and does not impair their very essence or deprive them of their effectiveness. To that end, it disagrees with the Government that the legal framework takes into account the nature of the offence (see paragraph 29 above). Beyond submitting that the offences committed intentionally are “stronger”, the Government have not sought to explain how and why excluding all persons convicted of having intentionally committed offences was reconcilable with the underlying purposes of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Scoppola (no. 3) [GC], cited above, § 84).

43. In any event, the Court observes that a similar legal framework, in fact one more favourable to prisoners, has already been examined by the Court in its judgment in the above-mentioned case of Frodl. In Austria, only prisoners who have committed with intent one or more criminal offences and been sentenced with final effect to a term of imprisonment of more than one year, forfeit the right to vote.

44. Furthermore, the Court observes that the seriousness of the offences committed by the applicant in the case of Scoppola (no. 3) was one of the factors taken into account by the Grand Chamber in reaching its conclusion that the disenfranchisement in the Italian system was not applied automatically or indiscriminately (§ 107). In the present case, the offence committed by the applicant was drawing cheques without having sufficient funds in his account. As such, the Court considers that the applicant’s case illustrates the indiscriminate application of the restriction even to persons convicted of relatively minor offences. The Court observes in this connection that drawing cheques without having sufficient funds in the bank account no longer carries a prison sentence (see paragraph 18 in “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice” above).

45. Furthermore, having regard to the nature of the offence committed by the applicant, the Court is also unable to see any rational connection between the sanction and the conduct and circumstances of the applicant. It reiterates in this connection that the severe measure of disenfranchisement must not be resorted to lightly and that the principle of proportionality requires a discernible and sufficient link between the sanction and the conduct and circumstances of the individual concerned (see Hirst (no. 2) [GC], cited above, § 71).

46. In light of the above, the Court cannot conclude that the legislature in Turkey has shown the requisite concern which, according to the Grand Chamber in the above-mentioned case of Scoppola (no.3), should exist in order to adjust the application of the measure to the particular circumstances of each case by taking into account such factors as the gravity of the offence committed and the conduct of the offender (ibid. § 106).

47. The Court concludes that the automatic and indiscriminate application of the harsh measure in Turkey on a vitally important Convention right must be seen as falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation, and that there has been a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION
48. The applicant argued that his disenfranchisement as a convicted prisoner was discriminatory.

49. The Court considers that this part of the application may be declared admissible. However, having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, it finds that no separate issue arises under Article 14 of the Convention (see Hirst (no.2) [GC], cited above, § 87).III. OTHER ALLEGED

VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
50. Lastly, the applicant complained of a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.

51. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court finds that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention provisions. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
52. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage
53. The applicant claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

54. The Government considered that the finding of a violation would be sufficient to remedy any non-pecuniary damage.

55. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court agrees with the Government and considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (see Hirst (no.2) [GC], cited above, §§ 93-94).

B. Costs and expenses
56. The applicant claimed EUR 912.50 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 2,450 for those incurred before the Court. In support of his claim the applicant submitted to the Court a detailed breakdown of the costs incurred by him and his legal representative.

57. The Government thought that the applicant claimed EUR 6,362.50, and considered that sum to be excessive and unsupported by adequate documentation. They also argued that no awards could be made for the applicant’s costs and expenses incurred at the national level.

58. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In response to the Government’s argument concerning the costs and expenses relating to the proceedings at the national level, the Court reiterates that, if it finds that there has been a violation of the Convention, it may award the applicant the costs and expenses incurred before the national courts for the prevention or redress of the violation (see Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 56, ECHR 2002‑III, and the cases cited therein). In the present case the applicant brought the substance of his Convention rights to the attention of the national authorities (see paragraph 7 above). In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant has a valid claim in respect of part of the costs and expenses incurred at the national level.

59. Regard being had to the documentation in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 3,000 covering costs under all heads. From this sum should be deducted the EUR 850 granted to the applicant by way of legal aid under the Council of Europe’s legal aid scheme (see paragraph 2 above).

C. Default interest
60. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaints under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

3. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention;

4. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;

5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), less the EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty euros) granted by way of legal aid, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of his costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Case of Ahmet Atahür Söyler v. Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Guido Raimondi, President,
Danutė Jočienė,
Peer Lorenzen,
András Sajó,
Işıl Karakaş,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 August 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date

ECHR Rules for sects in tax-exemption cases against France

Kader Kadem | 13:53 | 0 Comments
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled Thursday in favour of three sects - including the Mandarom de Castellane - bringing a judgement against France for violation of freedom of thought, conscience and religion.The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled Thursday in favour of three sects, including the Mandarom de Castellane - bringing a judgement against France for violation of freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
The decision in Strasbourg invalidated tax procedures brought against the sects, ordering France to pay 3 599 551 euros to the religious association Temple Pyramide, a sect known by the name Mandarom, for "property damage", 387 722 euros to the Evangelical Missionary Church and Eric Salaûn and 36 886 euros to the Chevaliers du Lotus d'or (Knights of the Golden Lotus).

Following tax assessment procedures, the first two groups (both officially dissolved in 1995) were able to recover more than 2.5 million euros and 37 000 euros respectively plus the application of a 60% tax on hand-to-hand gifts that had appeared in their accounts. The third claim was for 280 000 euros on similar grounds.

In all three cases, first brought to the European Court in 2007, the plaintiff associations invoked in particular Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." The associations alleged that the taxation of gifts to which they had been subjected infringed upon their right to demonstrate and exercise their freedom of religion.
The parties have three months to request a judicial review by the Grande Chamber for the ECtHR.
See the full judgments (in French):

The Association of the Knights of the Golden Lotus
The Religious Association of the Pyramid Temple
The Evangelical Missionary Church and Salaûn

ECHR 036 (2013) 31.01.2013
Chamber judgments concerning France
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments1, none of which is final. The judgments are available only in French.
The Religious Association of the Pyramid Temple/Association Cultuelle Du Temple Pyramide v. France (application no. 50471/07)

The Association of the Knights of the Golden Lotus/Association Des Chevaliers Du Lotus D’Or v. France (no. 50615/07)
The Evangelical Missionary Church and Salaûn/Eglise Evangelique Missionnaire et Salaûn v. France (no. 25502/07)
In these three cases the applicants relied, in particular, on Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), alleging that the fact that they had been required to pay tax on hand-to-hand gifts infringed their right to manifest and exercise their freedom of religion.

The Religious Association of the Pyramid Temple is a not-for-profit association which was set up on 3 April 1991 and dissolved on 10 August 1995 and the aim of which was the construction of a place of worship in Castellane (France). The Association of the Knights of the Golden Lotus is a not-for-profit association set up in 1971 and dissolved on 16 September 1995. It was dedicated to the practice of a new religion known as Aumism. Following tax assessment procedures, sums of more than 2.5 million euros and 37,000 euros respectively were recovered from the associations in question, after the tax authorities’ inspection revealed gifts entered in their accounts. When the associations refused to declare the gifts, the authorities automatically imposed a tax rate of 60% in accordance with Article 757 of the General Tax Code, which states that hand-to-hand gifts are subject to gift tax. The associations were also ordered to pay an 80% surcharge.

The applicants in the last case are the association the Evangelical Missionary Church and its president, Éric Salaûn. Following an audit of its accounts and the imposition of tax on the hand-to-hand gifts which this brought to light, the administrative authorities considered that the association could not be classified as a “religious” association for the purposes of claiming the corresponding tax exemptions. The association was therefore obliged to pay more than 280,000 euros (automatic taxation at the 60% rate) to the Treasury.
Violation of Article 9 (in all three cases)

Just satisfaction: EUR 3,599,551 to The Religious Association of the Pyramid Temple, EUR 36,886 to The Association of the Knights of the Golden Lotus and EUR 387,722 to The Evangelical Missionary Church and Salaûn (pecuniary damage), and EUR 49,568 The

Religious Association of the Pyramid Temple, EUR 10,000 to The Association of the Knights of the Golden Lotus and EUR 55,000 to The Evangelical Missionary Church and Salaûn (costs and expenses)

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

Russia Calls for Calm on Tense Turkish-Syria Border

Kader Kadem | 14:46 | 0 Comments
Russia Calls for Calm on Tense Turkish-Syria BorderRussian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov has urged restraint between Turkey and Syria, calling for calm on the tense Turkish-Syrian border.
“We believe both Syrian and Turkish authorities should exercise maximum restraint in this situation, taking into account the rising number of radicals among the Syrian opposition who can intentionally provoke conflicts on the border," said Gatilov on Tuesday.

Gatilov also warned NATO and world powers not to seek ways to intervene in the Syrian war or set up buffer zones between opposition and government forces.

“In our contacts with partners in NATO and in the region, we are calling on them not to seek pretexts for carrying out a military scenario or introducing initiatives such as humanitarian corridors or buffer zones," Gatilov said, according to the Interfax news agency.

Turkey has floated the idea of setting up "safe zones" inside Syria to protect civilians.

Ankara has repeatedly complained of artillery and gunfire spilling over its border, and last week signaled it would take action if there were a repeat of a mortar strike on its territory from inside Syria.

Iraq Tells Turkey to Stop Pursuing PKK Terrorists Over Border

Kader Kadem | 14:46 | 0 Comments
Iraq asked Turkey on Tuesday to stop attacking terrorists from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) sheltering across the border in northern Iraq, as Turkey prepares to extend its internal mandate for the raids.
The Baghdad government's power over Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region is limited, but the comments are an indication of tensions with Turkey, which has given refuge to Iraq's fugitive vice president.

The Turkish government on Monday asked parliament to renew the mandate, expiring on Oct. 17, under which it has mounted mostly aerial raids on the PKK bases in Iraq's Kurdish region. Parliament is due to discuss it on Thursday.

"The cabinet objects to this motion, which contradicts the principle of good neighbourly relations," Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh said in a statement.

"It rejects the presence of any foreign bases or troops on Iraqi territory and the incursion of any foreign military forces into Iraqi lands on the pretext of hunting down rebels," he added, complaining of a "violation of Iraqi sovereignty and security".

He said the cabinet had advised parliament to cancel or refuse to renew any pre-existing agreements that would permit foreign states to enter Iraqi territory.

ECHR; Ümit Diriöz Turkey (No: 38560/04)

Kader Kadem | 05:57 | 0 Comments
The applicant, Ümit Diriöz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and is currently being held in Bayrampaşa Prison in Istanbul (Turkey)The fact that the prosecutor stood on a raised platform in the courtroom did not infringe the principle of equality of arms.
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Diriöz v. Turkey (application no. 38560/04), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the complaint by an accused that there had been an infringement of the principle of equality of arms in so far as the prosecutor stood on a raised platform whereas he and his lawyer had been placed, as was the rule, at a lower level in the courtroom. The Court considered that whilst this conferred a privileged physical position on the prosecutor in the courtroom, it did not place the accused in a disadvantageous position regarding the defence of his interests. The Court also reiterated that neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevented a person from waiving of his or her own free will the right to legal assistance during police custody.

Principal facts
The applicant, Ümit Diriöz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and is currently being held in Bayrampaşa Prison in Istanbul (Turkey). On 9 September 2000, during an altercation between several individuals, he fired a pistol several times. Four people were injured and a fifth, who had had nothing to do with the altercation, was hit by a stray bullet and subsequently died. On 12 October 2000 the public prosecutor issued an arrest warrant against Mr Diriöz, who had fled.
On 14 January 2001 Mr Diriöz was arrested while in possession of a forged identity card and placed in police custody. The custody report signed on that day indicated that he had been informed, among other things, of his right to legal assistance. In his statement drawn up on 16 January 2001 Mr Diriöz ticked the box “I do not wish to be assisted by a lawyer”.

Deficiencies in effective access to justice in Turkey

Kader Kadem | 05:56 | 0 Comments
Turkey illegal organization lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individualBroad laws against terrorism and threats to the state, political pressure, and inadequacies in the judicial system limited access to justice, as did lengthy pretrial detention and lack of transparency in the prosecution of cases related to state security.
The time lag between arrests and presentation of indictments; leaks of information, evidence, or statements; restricted defense access to evidence put forward by the prosecution; and the secrecy of the investigation orders also fueled concerns about the effectiveness of judicial protections for suspects.

The close connection between prosecutors and judges gave the appearance of impropriety and unfairness in criminal cases, while the broad authority granted to prosecutors and judges contributed to inconsistent and uncertain application of criminal laws.

During the year the government adopted judicial reforms to speed up and improve judicial processes.

Pentagon: The Turks made the call (Uludere)

Kader Kadem | 02:57 | 0 Comments
Turkey Turkish Hakkari Civil Bomb PKK ULUDERE: U.S. military officers at the Fusion Cell in Ankara couldn't tell whether the men, bundled in heavy jackets, were civilians or guerrilla fighters. But their location in an area frequented by guerrilla fighters raised suspicions. The Americans alerted their Turkish counterparts.

Turkey—After winding along a narrow mountain ridge, a caravan of 38 men and mules paused on the Turkish-Iraqi border. Then they heard the propellers overhead. Minutes later, Turkish military aircraft dropped bombs that killed all but four of the men.

The strike in late December was meant to knock out Kurdish separatist fighters. Instead it killed civilians smuggling gasoline, a tragic blunder in Turkey's nearly three-decade campaign against the guerrillas. The killings ignited protests across the country and prompted wide-ranging official inquiries.

The civilian toll also set off alarms at the Pentagon: It was a U.S. Predator drone that spotted the men and pack animals, officials said, and American officers alerted Turkey.

The U.S. drone flew away after reporting the caravan's movements, leaving the Turkish military to decide whether to attack, according to an internal assessment by the U.S. Defense Department, described to The Wall Street Journal. "The Turks made the call," a senior U.S. defense official said. "It wasn't an American decision."

The U.S. role, which hasn't previously been reported, revealed the risks in a new strategy for extending American influence around the globe. It raises an outstanding question for the White House and Congress: How far do we entrust allies with our deadly drone technology?

Koç and Demir Turkey (26793/08)

Kader Kadem | 16:18 | 0 Comments
Koç and Demir v. Turkey (no. 26793/08). The applicants, Coşkun Koç and Turgay Demir, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1972 and 1977 respectively and live in Istanbul.

At the relevant time they were respectively a non-commissioned officer and a sergeant in the armed forces. On different dates they were placed in detention as a disciplinary measure. They complain that those sanctions were imposed by their military hierarchy and not by an independent and impartial tribunal. They rely on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).

C.A.S. and C.S. Romania (26692/05)

Kader Kadem | 14:07 | 0 Comments
The applicants, C.S. and C.A.S., father and son, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1954 and 1990 respectively and currently live in Iasi (Romania).

The case concerns C.A.S.’ complaint that it took the authorities seven years to investigate his repeated raped by a man, eventually acquitted, who forced his way into the family flat when he came home alone from school in a period from January to April 1998. C.A.S., 7-years’ old at the time, alleges in particular that the violent sexual abuse to which he was subjected was of such gravity that it amounted to torture, and that the proceedings were slanted, the domestic courts blaming his parents, and to a certain extent him, for not reacting sooner.

He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home). Both applicants further complain under Article 8 that their family life was destroyed and that they were forced to leave the town in which they lived to rebuild a normal life.

Arseniev, Republic of Moldova (10614/06)

Kader Kadem | 13:56 | 0 Comments
Arseniev v. Republic of Moldova (nos. 10614/06 and 10620/06)
The applicant, Igor Arseniev, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1959 and is serving a 20-year prison sentence for murder in a prison in Chişinău.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains about the inhuman conditions of his detention since 2003, notably on account of severe overcrowding, quantity and quality of food and hygiene.

He alleges in particular that, detained in those conditions for up to 23 hours per day, his psychiatric health has suffered. Further relying on Article 6 (right of access to court), he also complains that the courts refused to examine a number of civil proceedings he had brought notably against the prison authorities as he could not pay the court fees and that his appeal in cassation in the criminal proceedings against him was rejected as it had not been typed.

He also alleges under Article 6 that his lawyer in the criminal proceedings had not properly represented him.

Key to solving the Syrian impasse: Russia

Kader Kadem | 11:56 | 0 Comments
Turkey is preparing to host the second Friends of Syria meeting on April 1, following the first one in Tunisia, as the situation in its neighbor -- with which it shares an 877-kilometer-long border -- continues to be in complete “deadlock.” Just like the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people, Turkey has exhibited a strong will that Bashar al-Assad must leave the wheel of the country, but no significant option for how this can be done has emerged so far.

The fragmentation in the international community is bestowing extra life on the Assad regime, but also causing dozens of people to die every day. The death toll has already exceeded 8,000 according to United Nations statistics. The Syrian opposition, on the other hand, claims this number to be above 11,000. And the Assad regime says more than 2,000 security troops have died. In addition to deaths, there have also been increasing human rights violations and displacement of populations. Moreover, thousands of people are reported to have gone missing after they were arrested by Assad's troops. Currently, about 250,000 people have been displaced within the country while at least 30,000 people have sought shelter in neighboring countries.

The death brings the micro loans in India

Kader Kadem | 14:25 | 6Comments
South India, at first, like a drug poisons emitted into micro-loansFirst belongings, furniture, televisions sold after the jewels are gone. Some of them drank, some pesticides, a woman threw herself into the lake with someone else jumped in with their children. Debts of more than 200 due to the poor, committed suicide in 2010.

South India, at first, like a drug poisons emitted into micro-loans. Received a very poor part of the public debt with low interest ödeyememesi fatal.

SKS is a market leader in India in the 7 person company killed himself in the news throughout the country brought up to fear of death.

Burkacak the hearts of the kind happened. Micro-credit unable to repay the debt before the daughter of a woman SKS'den forced into prostitution and then afterwards committed suicide by drinking pesticide.

Women had a debt of 150 thousand rupees, ie, three thousand dollar loan and pay 600 rupees per week, ie 12 dollars. A girl in school loans to pay off student unable to pay 150 rupees, and the three-dollar room joined the trend of suicides.

Turkish air strike killed 36 civilians

Kader Kadem | 15:24 | 0 Comments
The deaths of 36 people, who may have been locals smuggling in goods from northern Iraq, killed in an overnight airstrike by Turkish warplanes in southeastern Turkey have led to doubts about the intelligence sources on which the military relied before conducting the operation.
Justice and Development Party (AK Party) Deputy Chairman Hüseyin Çelik held a press conference Thursday evening, saying the incident was the result of an “operational accident” that was caused by a mistake or intelligence failure. He said both a legal and an administrative probe were underway to name those responsible for the deadly error. “If there was a mistake, it will not be covered up in any way and the necessary legal action will be taken.”

A statement from the Şırnak Governor's Office said 35 people were killed and another was injured in the airstrikes. However, hospital records indicate a death toll of 36.

The Turkish military released a statement Thursday that said the area struck was the Sinat-Haftanin region of northern Iraq, where the primary Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) bases are located and where there are no civilian inhabitants.

“Administrative and judicial investigations are underway and procedures are being followed with respect to the incident,” the General Staff said.

ECHR; Veli İsmail Altınok

Kader Kadem | 08:50 | 0 Comments
The applicant, Veli Ismail Altınok, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives inAdana. He was arrested on 12 April 2007 following a complaint alleging fraud andforgery. After being brought before the criminal court he was placed in pre-trialdetention. Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to take proceedings to have the lawfulness ofdetention decided speedily by a court), he alleges that the lodging of an objection andthe procedure for automatic review of detention are ineffective. He also complains thatthe Assize Court did not give adequate reasons for ordering his continued detention anddismissing his objections. Relying on Article 5 § 5 (right to compensation), he complainsthat he did not have an effective remedy by which to obtain compensation. Altınok v. Turkey (no. 31610/08)

Europe May Turn Back 1930

Kader Kadem | 07:30 | 0 Comments
Europe Human Right Court President Jean-Paul Costas incumbency ends at this month. He has been chairing for 13 years. He talked about future of court, Europe, European Union, economic crisis damages to human rights.
According to Kayhan Karaca, reporter of ntvmsnbc.com, Jean Paul Costa is anxious about Europe future.

"We have two possible script view of geopolitical. First script is disaster. Those events at 1930's may repeat today (In Europe). Very serious economic and social crisis, unemployment, authoritarian regimes capture the competence and war. League of Nations demolishes and the passing from the peace to the war and the passing from international organizations to gunfight. This is the script of disaster. We can think these possibilities will repeat. All conditions are available. But although I think international society will resist despite these conditions and the peace will resist to the war. But the fact that we will live hard conditions is real. Climbing over economic crisis which begin 3 years ago will attend during long years. But I don't think script of disaster is inevitable" Costa said.

Turkey bombed military targets in Syria

Kader Kadem | 07:05 | 0 Comments
Turkey's military struck targets inside Syria on Wednesday in response to a mortar bomb fired from Syrian territory which killed five Turkish civilians, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's office said in a statement.

Our armed forces in the border region responded immediately to this abominable attack in line with their rules of engagement; targets were struck through artillery fire against places in Syria identified by radar, the statement said.

"Turkey will never leave unanswered such kinds of provocation by the Syrian regime against our national security," it added.

Davutoğlu had also agreed with NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on the need for an emergency meeting of NATO members, the statement said.

A mortar bomb fired from Syria landed in a residential district of the southeastern Turkish town of Akçakale on Wednesday, killing a woman and four children from the same family and wounding at least 13 other people.

A cloud of dust and smoke rose up over low-rise buildings as residents ran to help the wounded. Others, infuriated by the increasing spillover of violence from Syria's civil war, took to the streets shouting protests against the local authorities.

Davutoğlu phoned UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to brief him about the incident and also spoke with senior military officials and Syria crisis mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, his ministry said in a statement.

Davutoğlu signaled over the weekend that Turkey would take action if there was a repeat of a mortar strike which damaged homes and workplaces in Akçakale last Friday.

"It (latest mortar round) hit right in the middle of the neighbourhood. The wife and four children from the same family died," Ahmet Emin Meşhurgül, local head of the Turkish Red Crescent, told Reuters, adding he knew the victims personally.

ECHR; President Jean Paul Costa (France)

Kader Kadem | 06:56 | 1Comments
Born on 3 November 1941 in Tunis
Diploma of the Institute of Political Studies of Paris, 1961
Master of Law, Faculty of Law, Paris, 1962
Diploma of Superior Studies (post-graduate), Public law, 1964
Former pupil of the ENA (Ecole nationale d’administration), 1964-66
Auditeur at the Conseil d’Etat, 1966
Rapporteur at the judicial section of the Council of State, 1966-1971, 1977-80, 1987-89, assessor of sub-section (chamber), judicial section of the Council of State, 1989-93
Directeur du cabinet (political secretary) of the Minister of Education (Alain Savary), 1981-84
Associate professor, Universities of Orléans, 1989-98 and Panthéon-Sorbonne, 1992-98
President of sub-section, judicial section of the Council of State, 1993-98
Judge of the European Court of Human Rights since 1 November 1998
President of Section since 1 May 2000
Vice-President of the Court since 1 November 2001
President of the Court since 19 January 2007.

Turkey hittings military targets in Syria

Kader Kadem | 06:54 | 0 Comments
Turkey's governmentTurkish artillery hit targets near Syria's Tel Abyad border town for a second day on Thursday, killing several Syrian soldiers according to activists and security sources, after a mortar bomb fired from the area killed five Turkish civilians.

Turkey's government said "aggressive action" against its territory by Syria's military had become a serious threat to its national security and sought parliamentary approval for the deployment of Turkish troops beyond its borders.

"Turkey has no interest in a war with Syria. But Turkey is capable of protecting its borders and will retaliate when necessary," Ibrahim Kalin, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan, said on his Twitter account.

Political, diplomatic initiatives will continue," he said.

In the most serious cross-border escalation of the 18-month uprising in Syria, Turkey hit back after what it called "the last straw" when a mortar hit a residential neighbourhood of the southern border town of Akçakale on Wednesday.

Timoshenko: impossible damage?

Kader Kadem | 06:51 | 0 Comments
I hope that the recently proposed changes to the criminal code in Ukraine will make such trials impossible in the future,” said Thorbjorn Jagland, Secretary General of the 47-member body, after a Ukraine court jailed former Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko for seven years. She was convicted of abusing power.

Enraging:
The judgement has enraged the West, jeopardising Kiev’s plans to join the EU. The verdict has potentially devastating consequences for the country - which could be averted on appeal, as President Viktor Yanukovych was quick to point out.

Timoshenko filed a complaint against Ukraine at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in June, claiming her trial was politically motivated. The ECHR rules on actions brought by individuals and legal entities that claim their human and fundamental rights have not been upheld by national courts. So first, the Appeals Court in Ukraine must uphold the verdict against Timoshenko. If it does, it is likely that she could be awarded damages by the ECHR.

ECHR; Işıl Karakaş (Turkey)

Kader Kadem | 06:50 | 0 Comments
Echr, ecohr, Judge, Court, Judge of the European Court of Human Rights Born on 8 December 1958 in Istanbul, Turkey
B.A. in Political Science, Istanbul University, 1983
Research Assistant, Faculty of Political Sciences at the Istanbul University, 1984-1993
M.A. in Public Law, Istanbul University, 1986
M.A. in European Law, Centre européen universitaire at the Nancy II University, 1988
B.A. in Law, Marmara University, 1990
Member of the Istanbul Bar, 1991
PhD in Public Law, Istanbul University, 1992
Associate Professor, Faculty of Political Sciences at the Istanbul University, 1993-1999
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law at the Galatasaray University, 1999-2003
Director of the Research and Documentation Centre on Europe at the Galatasaray University, 2002-2008
Professor of International Law, Faculty of Law at the Galatasaray University, 2003-2008
Visiting Professor at the University of Aix-Marseille III, of Reims, of Montpellier II, of Strasbourg Robert Schuman
Vice-Dean, Faculty of Law at the Galatasaray University, 2004-2008
Judge of the European Court of Human Rights since 1 May 2008.
 
Support : Copyright © 2011. European Court of Human Rights - All Rights Reserved
Template Modify by Website
Proudly powered by Blogger