Showing 46747 results

Reply of the applicant in the Selçuk case to the observations of the Turkish Government submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, in which it is stated that the Government has not addressed the issue of the merits of the application and that the applicant maintains her initial submissions in this regard. Appended is Keje Selçuk's statement of 28 October 1994 (in Turkish with English translation) made to the Diyarbakır Branch of the Human Rights Association

Published report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Ergi case (A44/43/1/29), which concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights (unanimously), that there had been no violation of Articles 14 or 18 of the Convention (unanimously), that no separate issues arose under Article 8 (unanimously) or Article 13 of the Convention (22 votes to 9), and that the Turkish Government failed to comply with their obligations under Article 25 paragraph 1 of the Convention (30 votes to 1). The full report is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-45906

Published report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Bilgin case (A44/43/1/17), which concluded unanimously that there had been violations of Articles 3, 8, 13, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, that there had been no violation of Articles 14 or 18 of the Convention, and that the Turkish Government failed to comply with their obligations under former Article 25 of the Convention.

Published report (2 copies) of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Akdeniz and others case (A44/43/1/1), which declared the application admissible and expressed the opinion that: there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention (26 votes to 2), that there had been violations of Article 3 of the Convention with respect to the 11 missing individuals and with respect to the applicants (unanimously), that there had been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention (unanimously), that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (unanimously), that there had been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention (unanimously), and that Turkey had failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 of the Convention (unanimously). The full report is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-46211

Published report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Akdeniz and others case (A44/43/1/1), which declared the application admissible and expressed the opinion that: there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention (26 votes to 2), that there had been violations of Article 3 of the Convention with respect to the 11 missing individuals and with respect to the applicants (unanimously), that there had been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention (unanimously), that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (unanimously), that there had been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention (unanimously), and that Turkey had failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 of the Convention (unanimously). The full report is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-46211

Report adopted by the European Commission of Human Rights in the Akdeniz and others case. The Commission found that there had been violations of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (26 votes to 2), Article 3 (unanimous), Article 5 (unanimous), Article 13 (unanimous), and Article 25 paragraph 1 (unanimous), and no violation of Article 14 (unanimous).

Published report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Kurt case (A44/43/1/44), which concluded: that there had been a violation of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights with respect to the applicant’s son (unanimously), that there had been a violation of Article 3 with respect to the applicant (19 voted to 5), that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (unanimously), that there had been no violation of Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention (unanimously), and that that Turkey had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 25 paragraph 1 of the Convention.
The full report is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-45781

Published report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Aktaş case (A44/43/1/6), which declared the application admissible and expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been violations of Articles 2, 3, and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and no violation of article 14 of the Convention. Includes an unaltered published copy and a published copy with Françoise Hampson’s appended comments on the case.

Published report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Şarlı case (A44/43/1/52), which concluded that there had been no violations of Articles 2, 3, 14, and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (unanimously), that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (unanimously), that there had been no violation of Article 15 of the convention (22 votes to 3), and that Turkey had failed to comply with their obligations under former Article 25 paragraph 1 of the Convention. (3 copies)
The full report is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-46230

Published report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Aslantaş case (A44/43/1/9), which declared the application admissible and expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been violations of Articles 10 and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and no violation of Articles 14 or 18 of the Convention. (2 copies)