ANKARA - The European Court of Justice has decided to reject requests of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by an association in France and two people against Turkey.
Speaking at the weekly press conference, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesman Namik Tan said on Thursday, ''the lawsuit in question was filed by two real persons of Armenian origin living in France and a legal entity at the First Chamber of the European Court of Justice on October 9, 2003. The plaintiff claimed that the European Union's (EU) granting Turkey candidacy status at the Helsinki Summit of 1999 was against the decision of the European Parliament (EP) dated June 18, 1987 about the so-called Armenian genocide. They also claimed that the EU had harmed Armenian society by taking such a decision, and requested the court that Turkey's candidacy status should be annulled and the harm should be compensated.''
Tan said that the European Court of Justice at its today's session had decided to reject the requests of the plaintiff.
The Euro-Armenia Association in Marseilles, France, and Gregoire and Suzan Krikoryan, who described themselves as directors of the association, officially applied to the European Court of Justice in October of 2003, made a formal accusation against the EP, the EU Council and the EU Commission, and filed a lawsuit against them.
The plaintiff requested moral compensation from these three institutions of the EU on the ground that they had granted Turkey candidacy status.
In their application, the plaintiff claimed that granting Turkey, which did not recognize the so-called Armenian genocide, candidacy status was against the law, saying that the EP recognized the so-called Armenian genocide in its decision dated June 18, 1987; that the decision had a power of sanction in judiciary; that the EU institutions should abide by the decision, and that the EU law was violated.
The plaintiff requested a moral compensation of 1 Euro from each EU institutions mentioned above, and 30 thousand Euros to meet trial cost.
In their application, the plaintiff requested the European Court of Justice to activate its urgent decision-making mechanism, and immediate suspension of Turkey's EU membership process and relevant negotiations.
Claiming that official recognition of Turkey's EU candidacy at the Helsinki Summit held between December 10 and 11, 1999, and the EU's failure to put recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide as a pre-condition for Turkey's EU membership were against the EU law, the plaintiff also claimed that co-operation mechanism between Turkey and the EU and the EU's aid to Turkey were illegal.
The plaintiff defended that all relations with Turkey should be suspended in line with the decision of the EP dated 1987 till Turkey recognizes the so-called Armenian genocide.
Accusing the EP, the EU Council and the EU Commission, which had granted Turkey candidacy status and maintained relations with Turkey, of assuming an attitude against memories of victims of the so-called Armenian genocide and against historical facts, the plaintiff said that it was a matter of honor of whole Armenian nation.
The European Court of Justice has taken its decision after a detailed assessment in December of 2003. The Court first notified the plaintiff and the defendant of its decision. Later, the Court announced its decision to the public opinion.
In its decision, the Court said that the application of Armenian plaintiff did not have any legal base, therefore, the reasoned verdict was announced in line with Article 111 of the Court regulation without listening to the defendant.
Noting that the decision of the EP dated 1987 was ''only and fully political'' and that the recommendatory decision did not have a power of sanction, the European Court of Justice said that the EP could change the decision anytime and that the decision did not have any legal influence.
The Court underlined that it was wrongful to launch a legal initiative by relying on such a decision of the EP.
The Court considered the plaintiff's allegation that Armenian society suffered moral harm since the Turkish state did not recognize the so-called Armenian genocide, baseless.
The Court rejected these requests of the plaintiff, and sentenced them to pay the trial cost.

TURKEY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ARAYICI SAYS THEY, AS PUBLISHER OF MAGAZINE IN TURKEY, DO NOT APPROVE THE ARTICLE ABOUT ARMENIA
Turkey Director General of National Geographic magazine Murat Arayici said regarding an article on Armenia which includes improper claims against Turkey, ''it is a very unfortunate article. We, as publisher of the magazine in Turkey, do not approve this article.''
Replying to questions of A.A correspondent on Thursday, Arayici said that they were in coordination with the United States on publishing the magazine in Turkey, and added that the article which caused reaction would normally have taken place in March issue of the magazine in Turkey.
Arayici stressed that they could not intervene in editorial process of the magazine which was published in the United States.
Arayici said, ''the article which was published in the United States was sent to us. We conveyed our reservations about the issue. We said, 'it is a sensitive issue in Turkey. The expressions in the article will cause problems and uneasiness in Turkey. Please reconsider this article.' Some part of it was taken into consideration and the whole article was not changed. Thus, we rejected the article and did not publish it.''
''It is an unfortunate article. We, as publisher of the magazine in Turkey, do not approve this article. We conveyed the reaction of Turkish public opinion to the United States. We asked for an explanation. An explanation will be given in coming process,' Arayici added.
When asked whether this event would affect the sale of the magazine in Turkey, Arayici said that it was too early to discuss this.
(AA) 04.03.2004