AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 22947/93
                      by N.A.
                      against Turkey

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
28 February 1994, the following members being present:

      MM.  C.A. NØRGAARD, President
           S. TRECHSEL
           A. WEITZEL
           F. ERMACORA
           A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
           J.-C. SOYER
           H.G. SCHERMERS
           H. DANELIUS
           F. MARTINEZ
      Mrs. J. LIDDY
      MM.  L. LOUCAIDES
           M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
           B. MARXER
           G.B. REFFI
           M.A. NOWICKI
           I. CABRAL BARRETO
           B. CONFORTI
           N. BRATZA
           I. BÉKÉS
           J. MUCHA
           D. SVÁBY

      Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 1st November 1993 by
N.A. against Turkey and registered on 22 November 1993 under file No.
22947/93;

      Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant is a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, born in 1953
and resident at Diyarbakir. She is represented before the Commission by
Professor Kevin Boyle and Ms. Françoise Hampson, both of the University
of Essex.

      The facts as presented by the applicant may be summarised as
follows.

      The applicant has been, until recently, Head of the Diyarbakir
Branch of the Education and Science Workers Union (Egit-Sen). The Union
was founded in 1990, but the applicant's branch was declared illegal on
28 September 1992 by the Office of the Chief of Police and the Mayor of
Diyarbakir.

      Because of her activities on behalf of the members of Egit-Sen, the
applicant has been the object of persistent threats and other forms of
pressure which eventually forced her to leave her occupation as a
teacher, to cease to function as a trade union official, and to be
deprived of compensation otherwise due to her under Turkish law. She now
lives alone with two children and remains in fear for her life and those
of her children.

      On 26 October 1992 a meeting between the applicant, some of her
colleagues and the National Education Director had been arranged for the
following day. The purpose was to appeal to the Director to put an end
to attacks against members of Egit-Sen, since in October 1992 four
members had been attacked, one of them had died, others were undergoing
treatment, and about 40 members had been exiled in other regions.

      When the applicant arrived at the meeting on 27 October 1992, she
saw the building surrounded by plain clothes police and cameras made
ready to film those arriving for the meeting. The Director said he could
only receive a small group. The applicant organised a group of seven
persons and told the others to leave, but the police did not allow
anybody to leave and filmed and verbally abused the persons who had
gathered there. Everybody's identity was checked. A woman who did not
wish to show her identity papers was pulled by the hair and bundled into
a waiting police car. Another thirteen educational workers were also
taken away.

      After the meeting the applicant went to the City Governor to
complain of their treatment. The Governor's reply was that they had been
told not to go to the National Education Directorate and that they had
bad motives. He further said: "You don't raise your voices when the
State's soldiers or police die. Why do you want to meet when teachers
die?"

      The day after these events the applicant received a telephone call
and was told: "You are also going to die. It is now your turn. We are
going to kill you off."

      In November 1992 the applicant applied to the Diyarbakir State
Prosecutor about the incident on 27 October 1992. After initial delays
the case was dismissed in February 1993.

      After the events on 27 October 1992 the applicant made a statement
to the newspaper Diyarbakir Soz on 31 October 1992 under the headline
"Eleven teachers detained in Diyarbakir". In that article she gave an
account of the events prior to and including the meeting at the
Directorate, focusing on the fact that the meeting had been by prior
arrangement.

      On 23 November 1992 she made another statement to the same newspaper
in an open letter bearing the headline "24 November is not Teachers'
Day". Referring to the fact that 24 November is a day designated to
honour teachers, she stated in that open letter that teachers had little
cause to celebrate such a day, and proceeded to indicate the ways in
which education workers suffered. She listed, inter alia, the lack of
trade union rights, the hours of work of teachers and their clothing
allowance, the fact that students feel pressured to give a gift to their
teacher which they often cannot afford. She then focused on her region
and pointed to the exiles and attacks on teachers in the region, to the
fact that classes were too large and to the fact that police interfere
with the functioning of secondary schools by arresting students in class
and insulting teachers.

      As a result of these statements to the press, and of her trade union
activity, the applicant was the subject of three formal findings by the
National Education Ministry:

1.    On 22 February 1993 the Diyarbakir National Education Directorate
declared that the applicant had violated Article 26 of Law No. 657, which
prohibits statutory applications or complaints to be made jointly by two
or more State officials and which also bans collective action by civil
servants. The Directorate concluded that this was behaviour not suited
to the dignity of a civil servant, which required the issue of a formal
warning according to Article 125 of the said Law.

2.    On 5 March 1993 the Diyarbakir Provincial National Education
Disciplinary Committee found that the applicant had taken part in the
activity of a trade union whose authorities and responsibilities were not
known, i.e. was an unauthorised and therefore illegal trade union. The
applicant was also found to be in violation of Section 4 of Law No. 657
insofar as it prohibits "involvement in collective action and behaviour
unsuitable to the dignity of a State official" as well as Article 26 of
the same Law, which prohibits State officials from associating in groups
of two or more in order to make an application or a complaint to their
employer. Because of her statement to the newspaper on 23 November 1992
the applicant was also found to be in violation of Article 125 D(g) of
the same Law, which prohibits State officials from "giving information
and statements to the press, news agencies, radio or television
institutions when not authorised to do so". As a result of these
findings, the Committee sanctioned the applicant by a reduction in
salary, in accordance with Article 125 C.

3.    On 14 May 1993 the Diyarbakir Provincial National Education
Disciplinary Committee found that the applicant's statement to the
newspaper on 31 October 1992 had been a violation of Article 125 D(g) of
Law No. 657. Her case was then referred to the Provincial Office of
National Education for consideration of blockage of her promotion, as
authorised by Article 126 of the same Law.

      Subsequently the applicant has been the subject of threats and
pressure which have obliged her to leave her occupation as a teacher, and
hence her position in the trade union. Because of the disciplinary
penalties she has not been able to receive her severance pay and
obstacles are placed in the way of her collection of her pension. She is
also continuously being exposed to threats.

COMPLAINTS

      The applicant complains of violations of Articles 2, 6, 10, 11, 13
and 14 (in conjunction with Articles 6 and 11) of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No 1.

      As to Article 2, the applicant alleges that the threats against her
create a well-founded fear that her life is in jeopardy. In view of the
high incidence and systematic pattern of killings of Kurdish teachers in
the Diyarbakir area, particularly of those prominent in the affairs of
the Kurdish people, it would be reasonable to expect that the Turkish
Government should take special measures to protect her right to life. By
failing to do so, the Government is in violation of Article 2.

      As to Article 6, the applicant states that none of the disciplinary
decisions taken against her was the product of a fair and public hearing
by an independent and impartial tribunal.

      As to Article 10, the applicant submits that the penalties imposed
upon her as a result of her statements to the newspaper are in conflict
with her right to freedom of expression, for which there is no
justification under para. 2 of Article 10.

      As to Article 11, the applicant complains that she was subject to
disciplinary penalties because of her trade union activities. She has
also been exposed to threats and intimidation with a view to making her
relinquish her functions as a trade unionist and to reprisals thereafter.
Her right to peaceful assembly was also violated in connection with the
meeting on 27 October 1992.

      As to Article 13, the applicant complains of the lack of an
effective remedy against the violations which occurred on
27 October 1992. She complained to the Diyarbakir State Prosecutor who,
without any investigation and on the basis of statements by the police,
dismissed the complaint.

      As to Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 6 and 11, the
applicant states that the violation of Article 6 in her case is the
result of a breakdown in the system of justice to a degree that occurs
on a systematic basis only in South-East Turkey, and that as a trade
unionist she was subjected to legal disabilities and penalties which are
not applied to trade union officials in other parts of Turkey.

      As to Article 1 of Protocol No 1, the applicant considers that there
has been a violation of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her
possessions as a result of the refusal to make pension and severance
payments after the termination of her employment.

      As regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the applicant points
out that, in regard to the incident on 27 October 1992, she applied to
the Diyarbakir State Prosecutor who dismised the complaint in February
1993. She has not taken the matter further, since this would serve no
purpose. There is also a fear of reprisal, which should be seen as a
legitimate reason for not exhausting remedies. In any case remedies are
not effective. There is a common practice of arbitrary application of the
law, and for none of the wrongs she has suffered is there adequate
prospect of her receiving justice by way of further recourse to domestic
remedies.

      As regards the six months' time-limit, the applicant considers that,
in view of the threats and intimidation to which she is exposed, there
is a continuing situation for the purposes of fixing the time-limit for
application to the Commission. Alternatively, the latest disciplinary
decision taken against her was dated 14 May 1993, which is within the six
months' time-limit.-limit. As a further alternative, she considers that the
six months' rule should be suspended in her case, since she has not been
in a position to supply the full facts because of fear of reprisal from
the authorities.

THE LAW

1.    The applicant complains of a violation of Article 2 (Art. 2) of the
Convention in that the Turkish authorities have allegedly failed to
provide her with the protection she needs in a situation where she has
well-founded fears for her life.

      Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention provides, inter alia, that
"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law". It is true that
this provision imposes on the Contracting States an obligation to take
appropriate steps to protect life (cf. No. 9348/81, Dec. 28.2.83, D.R. 32
p. 190; No. 11604/85, Naddaf v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Dec.
10.10.86, D.R. 50 P. 259). However, in the present case the applicant has
not shown that she is exposed to such threats to her life as would make
it necessary for the authorities to take specific protective measures.

      It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2.    The applicant next complains of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6)
of the Convention in that she did not have a fair and public hearing by
an independent and impartial tribunal in the disciplinary proceedings
brought against her.

      Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention provides, inter alia, that "In
the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal
charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ...
by an independent and impartial tribunal ...".

      However, the proceedings brought against the applicant were clearly
of a disciplinary character and cannot be considered to have concerned
either her civil rights or obligations or the determination of a criminal
charge against her (cf. No. 9208/80, Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal,
Dec. 10.7.81, D.R. 26 p.262; No. 10059/82, Dec. 5.7.85, D.R. 43 p.5).
Consequently, Article 6 (Art. 6) was not applicable to those proceedings.

      It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with
the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 27 para.
2 (Art. 27-2).

3.    The applicant also complains of a violations of Article 10 (Art. 10)
of the Convention in that she has been subjected to disciplinary measures
because of statements which she made to a local newspaper.

      Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention reads, insofar as relevant,
as follows:

           "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This
           right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive
           and impart information and ideas without interference by
           public authority and regardless of frontiers. ...

           2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
           duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such
           formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
           prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society,
           in the interests of national security, territorial integrity
           or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for
           the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for
           preventing the disclosure of information received in
           confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality
           of the judiciary."

      The Commission notes that on 5 March 1993 the Diyarbakir Provincial
National Education Discipline Committee imposed a disciplinary penalty
on the applicant for having made a statement to a newspaper on
23 November 1992.

      However, according to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the
Commission may only deal with a complaint which has lodged within a time-
limit of six months from the date of the final domestic decision. The
present application was introduced on 1 November 1993, i.e. more than six
months after the contested decision of 5 March 1993.

      The applicant has stated that, in view of the threats and
intimidation to which she has been exposed and her fear of reprisals, the
situation should be regarded as a continuing one, or that the six months'
time-limit should be considered to have been suspended in her case.

      The Commission cannot find that, as regards the disciplinary
sanction for the statement to the press on 23 November 1992, there exists
a continuing violation of the Convention. Nor has it been shown that the
applicant was unable to complain to the Commission during the six months
following the decision of 5 March 1993.

      It follows that the complaint regarding the decision of 5 March 1993
must be rejected in accordance with Articles 26 and 27 para. 3
(Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention.

      The Commission further notes that, in its decision of 14 May 1993,
the Diyarbakir Provincial National Education Disciplinary Committee found
that the applicant had violated Turkish law by addressing a statement to
a local newspaper on 31 October 1992. As far as the complaint regarding
this decision is concerned, the Commission finds it necessary to obtain
the observations of the respondent Government before taking a decision
on its admissibility.

4.    The applicant further complains of a violation of her right to
peaceful assembly ensured by Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention in
respect of the following:

-     alleged threats and intimidation with a view to making her
      relinquish her functions as a trade unionist;

-     alleged reprisals after she had relinquished these functions;

-     the decisions of 22 February 1993 (the Diyarbakir National
      Education Directorate) and 5 March 1993 (the Diyarbakir
      Provincial National Education Disciplinary Committee) in which
      the applicant's exercise of trade union rights were found to be in
      violation of Turkish law; and

-     police intervention and the ensuing events on 27 October 1992.

      Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention provides as follows:

           "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
           to freedom of association with others, including the right to
           form and to join trade unions for the protection of his
           interests.

           2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these
           rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are
           necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national
           security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or
           crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the
           protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article
           shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the
           exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of
           the police or of the administration of the State."

a)    The Commission first considers that, insofar as the applicant
alleges in general terms that she has been exposed to threats,
intimidation and reprisals, she has not substantiated her complaints.
This aspect of her complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

b)    As regards the decisions of 22 February and 5 March 1993, the
Commission notes that the application was introduced more than six months
after the dates of these decisions. For the reasons indicated above under
point 3 above, the Commission considers that in this respect there is no
continuing situation and that it has not been shown that the applicant
was unable to complain to the Commission within the six months' time-
limit.

      As regards the complaint about events on 27 October 1992, the
Commission notes that the applicant complained to the State Prosecutor,
who dismissed the matter in February 1993. She did not, however, complain
to the Commission within six months of this rejection of her complaint.
In this respect too, there is no question of a continuing situation, and
it has not been shown that the applicant was unable to lodge her
complaint with the Commission within the applicable time-limit.

      It follows that, as regards the decisions of 22 February and
5 March 1993 and events on 27 October 1992, the applicant's complaints
must be rejected pursuant to Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 (Art. 26, 27-3)
of the Convention.

5.    The applicant next complains of a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13)
of the Convention in that there was no effective remedy against the
alleged violation of her rights with the events on 27 October 1992.

      Article 13 (Art. 13) guarantees the right to an effective remedy
before a national authority in respect of violations of Convention rights
and freedoms.

      The Commission recalls that it has found the complaint regarding the
events on 27 October 1992 to be inadmissible for non-observance of the
six months' time-limit (see point 4 b) above). It follows that the same
ground of inadmissibility applies to the complaint under Article 13
(Art. 13) of the Convention, which must, therefore, also be rejected
pursuant to Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 (Art. 26, 27-3).

6.    The applicant also complains of violations of Article 14 in
conjunction with Articles 6 and 11 (Art. 14+6+11) of the Convention, in
that the situation in South-East Turkey is such as to constitute
discrimination against her in the enjoyment of her rights under the
latter provisions.

      Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention prohibits discrimination in
the enjoyment of Convention rights and freedoms.

      The Commission recalls that the applicant's complaint under Article
6 (Art. 6) has been found to be incompatible with the Convention ratione
materiae (see point 2 above), and that the applicant's complaints under
Article 11 (Art. 11) have been found to be partly manifestly ill-founded
and partly inadmissible for having being introduced after the expiry of
the six months' time-limit (see point 4 above). The Commission finds that
the complaints about violations of Article 14 (Art. 14+6+11) in
conjunction with these Articles are inadmissible on the same grounds.
They must, therefore, be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 2 and
Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-2, 26, 27-3) respectively.

7.    Finally, the applicant complains of a violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No 1 (P1-1) in that her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her
possessions has been breached as a result of the refusal to pay her a
pension and a severance allowance after the termination of her
employment.

      The first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (P1-1) provides
as follows:

           "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
           enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his
           possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
           conditions provided for by law and by the general principles
           of international law".

      However, the Commission does not find it established that the
applicant had, under Turkish law, a right to the financial benefits at
issue. Consequently, it has not been shown that she has been denied the
peaceful enjoyment of her possessions or that she has been deprived of
any property.

      It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

-     ADJOURNS its examination of the applicant's complaint about a
      violation of her freedom of expression allegedly resulting from the
      decision of the Provincial National Education Disciplinary Committee
      on 14 May 1993;

-     DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission        President of the Commission

       (H.C. KRÜGER)                     (C.A. NØRGAARD)