Showing 46798 results

English copy of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Çakıcı v. Turkey. The Court:

1. Dismisses unanimously the Government’s preliminary objection;
2. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention;
3. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s brother;
4. Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant;
5. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention;
6. Holds by sixteen votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
7. Holds unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention;
8. Holds unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 18 of the Convention;
9. Holds unanimously
   (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following sums, to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
   (i) 11,534 (eleven thousand five hundred and thirty-four) pounds sterling and 29 (twenty-nine) pence for pecuniary damage to be held by the applicant for his brother’s surviving spouse and heirs;
   (ii) 25,000 (twenty-five thousand) pounds sterling for non-pecuniary damage, which sum is to be held by the applicant for his brother’s heirs, and 2,500 (two thousand five hundred) pounds sterling for non-pecuniary damage in respect of the applicant;
   (b) that simple interest at an annual rate of 7.5% shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
10. Holds by twelve votes to five
    (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, in respect of costs and expenses, 20,000 (twenty thousand) pounds sterling together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable, less 7,000 (seven thousand) French francs to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable at the date of delivery of this judgment;
    (b) that simple interest at an annual rate of 7.5% shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
    Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.

Case of Christopher Ormsby, with Lord Dillon and Richard Nagle's opinion on it.

Published judgment in the Zübeyde Dulaş case (A44/32/1/25). On 30 January 2001, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled that violations of Articles 3, 8, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights had occurred, ruled 6 votes to 1 that a violation of Article 13 had occurred, and ruled unanimously that the Government failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 § 1 of the Convention. The Government were ordered to pay Zübeyde Dulaş £12,600 sterling in pecuniary damages, £10,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages, and £14,900 sterling (less 7,500 French francs received in legal aid) in costs and expenses. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-59161

Published judgment in the Muharrem Ergi case (A44/43/1/29). On 28 July 1998, the European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously that it had not been established that the applicant’s sister was killed by the security forces in breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor had there been violations of Articles 14 and 18, but that there had been a violation of Article 2 on account of the planning and conduct of the security forces’ operation and in respect of the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Havva Ergi. The Court also ruled 8 votes to 1 that there had been violations of Articles 13 and 25 § 1. The Government were ordered to pay Muharrem Ergi £1,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages and £12,000 sterling (less 9,995 French francs received in legal aid) in legal costs and expenses. Havva Ergi’s daughter was awarded £5,000 in non-pecuniary damages. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58200. (2 copies)

Published judgment in the Mehmet Gül case (A44/43/1/32). On 14 December 2000, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled that there had been violations of Articles 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and ruled 6 votes to 1 that there had been a violation of Article 13. The Government were ordered to pay Mehmet Gül’s widow and children £35,000 sterling in pecuniary damages and £20,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages, and were ordered to pay Mehmet Gül the elder £10,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages and £21,000 sterling in costs and expenses. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-59081. (2 copies)

Printout of the judgment in the case of Gülez v. Turkey (54/1997/838/1044), containing many character encoding errors.

Published judgment in the İsmet Gündem case (A44/43/1/33). On 25 May 1998, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that there had been no violation of Articles 3, 5 § 1, 8 and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights or of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and held by 13 votes to 7 that there had been no violation of Article 13. The Court considered that the evidence gave rise to serious doubts as to whether applicant had made out a factual basis for his allegation that his house and property had been purposely destroyed by the security forces – in the circumstances of the case, including the absence of an opportunity for the Commission to test directly with him his written statements, the Court was not satisfied that he had an arguable claim that the Convention had been violated. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58171. (2 copies)

Observations of the Turkish Government in the Çiçek case submitted to the European Court of Human Rights regarding the applicant's claims for just satisfaction. The Government asks the Court to not award compensation for damages as the Government does not accept that there was a violation of the Convention. The Government also states that all figures have been inflated and are excessive and that the Kurdish Human Rights Project's costs are not valid. The observations are enclosed by a letter (in English) from Michael O'Boyle, Section Registrar, European Court of Human Rights, to Françoise Hampson.

Observations of the Turkish Government in the Çiçek case submitted to the European Court of Human Rights regarding the applicant's claims for just satisfaction. The Government asks the Court to not award compensation for damages as the Government does not accept that there was a violation of the Convention. The Government also states that all figures have been inflated and are excessive and that the Kurdish Human Rights Project's costs are not valid. The observations are enclosed by a letter (in English) from Michael O'Boyle, Section Registrar, European Court of Human Rights, to Françoise Hampson. (2 copies)

Printout of the judgment in the Mehmet Haran case (A44/43/1/34; the judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60330), in which the European Court of Human Rights struck the case out of its list after imposing the terms of a unilateral declaration from the Turkish Government offering a payment of £80,000 sterling and a statement accepting 'that the use of unjustified force resulting in death constitutes a violation of Article 2 of the Convention'.