Transcript
Det juridiske fakultet Universitetet i Oslo Side 1 av 3
EKSAMEN I JUROFF 1410 VÅR 2015 Dato: Tid:
Mandag 4.mai 2015 Kl. 10:00 – 15:00
Begge oppgavene nedenfor skal besvares. Det anbefales å bruke ca. to tredeler av tiden på oppgave 1. Oppgave 1: Den tyrkiske statsborgeren Ibrahim Karci ble den 1. august 2012 dømt til åtte års fengsel for delaktighet i terrorvirksomhet i regi av organisasjonen PKK. I det tyrkiske fengselet hvor Karci ble satt til å sone, gjaldt det en restriksjon i adgangen til å føre telefonsamtaler på andre språk enn tyrkisk. Karci behersket tyrkisk brukbart, men hans morsmål var kurdisk. Restriksjonen var nedfelt i artikkel nr. 88 i tyrkisk lov nr. 5275, som bestemte at telefonsamtaler i utgangspunktet måtte føres på tyrkisk. Det kunne imidlertid gjøres unntak dersom den domfelte og/eller den domfelte ville snakke med ikke forstod tyrkisk. I så fall kunne domfelte fylle ut et skjema hvor det fremgikk at minst en av samtalepartene ikke forstod tyrkisk. Dersom fengselsmyndighetene ikke uten videre fant grunn til å tillate et annet språk, kunne man iverksette – for domfeltes regning – iverksette nærmere undersøkelser med sikte på å avgjøre om et annet språk skulle tillates. Den 26. mai 2013 reiste Karci søksmål for en tyrkisk underrettsdomstol mot den tyrkiske stat. Han hevdet at restriksjonen var ulovlig, blant annet fordi den stred mot Den europeiske menneskerettighetskonvensjonen (EMK) artikkel 8 om rett til privatliv. Han anførte at han hadde villet snakke med sin mor, og at det måtet være et rimelig krav å få føre en slik samtale på morsmålet, selv om moren også forstod tyrkisk. Staten anførte at Karci, etter fengselsmyndighetens fremstilling av saken, ikke hadde gitt tilstrekkelig informasjon i henhold ovennevnte regel, og at det var grunnen til at Karci ble nektet å snakke i telefonen på kurdisk. Underrettsdomstolen frifant staten. Karci anket saken videre i det tyrkiske rettsapparatet, og den nasjonale behandlingen endte med at Tyrkias høyesterett den 28. august 2014 frifant staten. To uker senere anla Karci sak for Den europeiske menneskerettighetsdomstol. Han hevdet at restriksjonen innebar en krenkelse av hans rett til korrespondanse og/eller privat- og familieliv etter EMK artikkel 8. Denne bestemmelsen lyder:
Det juridiske fakultet Universitetet i Oslo Side 2 av 3
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, 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. Den tyrkiske stat på stod seg frifunnet og anførte blant annet følgende: “The impugned interference was necessary and proportionate. The applicant was members of the terrorist organisation PKK and had previously spoken Turkish with his relatives on the telephone. However, later on he requested to conduct his conversations in Kurdish. The Kurdish language has different dialects, and there is at times no Kurdish speaking personnel in the prison. The prison authorities asked the applicant, in accordance with Rule 88, for the names and addresses of the individuals with whom he wished to speak in order to seek information on them. Prisoners who have good intentions give such information and, once the investigation has been carried out, permission to use Kurdish is granted for those who did not speak Turkish. Other prisoners with bad intentions, however, request permission to use Kurdish without giving the requisite information. Those prisoners make it impossible to obtain any information about their relatives. This was the case with Karci. Moreover, the relatives of some prisoners – as was also the case with Karci - cannot be traced at the address given. Accordingly, the prisoner in question had not fulfilled his obligations in order to conduct his telephone conversations in a language other than Turkish.” Karci anførte blant annet følgende: “The practice of the prison authorities is arbitrary, hurtful and inhuman, both for me and my relatives. I was prevented from making telephone calls to my relatives in Kurdish. My telephone conversations were furthermore interrupted or impeded, without any good reason. I requested permission to speak to my relatives on the telephone in Kurdish, but was told that those relatives had not been traced at the address I had given to the prison authorities, with the result that it had not been possible to ascertain whether or not they spoke Turkish. It is not necessary in a democratic society to prevent me from expressing myself in my mother tongue. The prison authorities must have the resources to monitor and translate conversations. They have, however, refrained from doing so in order to prevent me from speaking Kurdish with my family and thus from communicating with them. My criminal conviction cannot deprive me of the enjoyment of my human rights, and I have a right to freedom of communication. Any limitation of that right has to be justified,
Det juridiske fakultet Universitetet i Oslo Side 3 av 3
and any interference is arbitrary, unless it is based on a legal provision that is published and accessible. Of course, some measure of control over prisoners’ interaction with the outside world is necessary for prison security and for preventing criminality. However, any legitimate aim must be used proportionately and not as a justification for restrictions on the communication I wish to have with my family and the outside world in a language other than Turkish. The ban on communicating with the outside world in Kurdish cannot be justified solely by a lack of personnel. The domestic authorities have not investigated whether my telephone conversations would have any illegal content or could jeopardise prison security. The State authorities have simply assumed that, since they were to be conducted in Kurdish, the telephone conversations would necessarily have some illegal content.” Drøft følgende spørsmål: Ser denne restriksjonen ut til å være i strid med EMK artikkel 8? Oppgave 2: Redegjør for kyststatens myndighet i den tilstøtende sone etter følgende bestemmelse: Article 33. Contiguous zone 1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to: (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea. 2. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. ****** Sensuren faller tirsdag 26. mai klokken 15.00. Kontroller på StudWeb eller ta kontakt med Infosenteret på 22 85 95 00. Kandidatene har rett til en redegjørelse for sensurvedtaket ved henvendelse til sensorene innen en uke etter sensur. Kontaktinformasjon for sensorer finnes på Fakultetets nettsider. Du kan også ta kontakt med infosenteret. Klagefristen er tre uker etter sensur.
Oslo, 4.5.2015
