Showing 46798 results

Published judgment in the Koçeri Kurt case (A44/43/1/44). On 25 May 1998, the European Court of Human Rights ruled by 6 votes to 3 that there had been violations of Article 3, 5, and 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and by 7 votes to 2 that there had been a violation of Article 13. The Turkish Government were ordered to pay Üzeyir Kurt’s heirs £15,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages, and to pay Koçeri Kurt £10,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages and €15,000 in legal costs and expenses (less 27,763 French francs received in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58198

Published judgment in the Sadi Mansur case (application no. 16026/90, European Court of Human Rights case number 14/1994/461/542). Mansur was an Iranian national in the process of acquiring Turkish nationality when he was arrested in Greece for drug trafficking between Greece and Turkey. On 12 June 1981 the Salonika Court of Appeal (Greece) sentenced him to four years' imprisonment for drug trafficking
between Greece and Turkey. On 18 April 1984, at the end of a preliminary investigation opened after the conviction in Greece, the Ipsala public prosecutor's office committed Mr Mansur and A.D., his alleged accomplice, for trial at the Edirne First Assize Court on a charge of exporting drugs. Protracted proceedings ensued over the next seven years. On 19 February 1991, the Edirne court sentenced Mansur to thirty years' imprisonment. In its judgment it pointed out that Mr Mansur had already been given a sentence of four years' imprisonment in Greece for the same facts. Mr Mansur applied to the Commission on 23 November 1989. He complained of the length both of his detention pending trial (Article 5 paragraph 3 of the Convention) and of the criminal proceedings against him (Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention).
On 8 June 1995, the Court:
i) dismissed the preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis;
ii) dismissed the objection that domestic remedies were not exhausted;
iii) dismissed the objection based on loss of victim status;
iv) held that there had been a breach of Article 5 paragraph 3 of the Convention on account of the length of the applicant's detention;
v) held that there had been a breach of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the criminal proceedings;
vi) held that the Turkish Government was to pay the applicant, 30,000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 30,000 French francs in respect of costs and fees, (less 14,106.50 French francs received in legal aid).
This was not a Kurdish Litigation Project case. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57932

Published judgment in the McCann and others case (application no. 18984/91, European Court of Human Rights case number 17/1994/464/545). The applicants lodged their application with the European Commission of Human Rights on 14 August 1991. The applicants complained that the March 1988 killings of Provisional Irish Republican Army members Daniel McCann, Mairead Farrell, and Sean Savage by members of the British Special Air Service (Special Air Service) in Gibraltar constituted a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Thames Television programme ""Death on the Rock"" presented evidence that the IRA members were shot without warning or with their hands up. It was condemned by the British government and denounced in the press as sensationalist. After one of its witnesses retracted his statement, ""Death on the Rock"" became the first individual documentary to be the subject of an independent inquiry, in which it was largely vindicated.
The Commission's report found no violation of Article 2 but referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights for a final decision. The court rejected the families' submission that the British government had conspired to kill the three but did find a violation of Article 2 in the defective planning and control of the operation. Nevertheless, the applicants' claim for damages was dismissed on the grounds that the trio had been killed while preparing an act of terrorism, though it did order the government to pay the applicants' costs. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-57943

Published judgment in the Azize Menteş and others case (A44/43/1/46). On 28 November 1997, the European Court of Human Rights dismissed by 15 votes to 6 the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies; held by 16 votes to 5 that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights with respect to the first three applicants; held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention with respect to the first three applicants; and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention with regard to Sariye Uvat. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58120. (5 copies)

Printout of the judgment in the Sariye Oğur case. On 24 December 1990, Turkish security forces carried out an armed operation at a site belonging to a mining company some six kilometres from the village of Dağkonak. The applicant’s son, Musa Oğur, who worked at the mine as a night-watchman, was killed at about 6.30 a.m. as he was about to come off duty. According to the Government, the scene of the incident had been used as a shelter by four terrorists who were members of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), including the applicant’s son. Musa Oğur had been hit by bullets from warning shots fired by the security forces. According to the applicant, her son had merely been one of the guards at the mining company’s site and he had been shot dead by the security forces without warning. On 20 May 1999, the Court ruled 16 votes to 1 that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the planning and execution of the operation that led to the death of the applicant’s son, and ruled unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention as regards the investigations carried out by the national authorities. The Government was ordered to pay Mrs Oğur 100,000 French francs in non-pecuniary damages and 30,000 French francs in legal costs and expenses (less 18,830 French francs received in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58251

Published judgment in the Gurbetelli Ersöz and others (Özgür Gündem) case (A44/43/1/30). On 16 March 2000, the European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but not of Article 14. The Government were ordered to pay Ülkem Basın ve Yayıncılık Sanayı Ticaret Ltd 9,000,000,000 Turkish lira, was ordered to pay Çetin and Kaya £5,000 sterling each in non-pecuniary damages, and was ordered to pay the applicants £16,000 sterling in costs and expenses (less 9,195 French francs received in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58508

Published judgment in the Behiye Salman case (A44/43/1/51). On 27 June 2000, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights with respected to Agit Salman’s death in custody (16 votes to 1), that there had been violations of Article 2 with regards to the failure to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into the death and of Article 3 (unanimous), that there had been a violation of Article 13 (16 votes to 1), and that Turkey failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 § 1 (unanimous). The Turkish Government were ordered to pay Behiye Salman £39,320.64 sterling in pecuniary damages, £35,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages, and £21,544.58 sterling in legal fees and expenses (less 11,195 French francs awarded in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58735

Published judgment in the Cemile Şarlı case (A44/43/1/52). On 22 May 2001 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there had been violations of Articles 13 and 25 of the European Convention of Human Rights (6 votes to 1) and no violation of Article 5 (unanimous). The Turkish Government were ordered to pay Cemile Şarlı £5,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages and £18,000 sterling in legal fees and expenses (less 11,500 French francs awarded in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-59460

Published judgment in the Keje Selçuk and İsmet Asker case (A44/43/1/53). On 24 April 1998 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there had been violations of Articles 3, 8, 13 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights (8 votes to 1) and no violations of Article 14 or 18 (unanimous). The Turkish Government were ordered to pay Keje Selçuk £17,760.32 sterling in pecuniary damages, İsmet Asker £22,408.48 in pecuniary damages, £10,000 to each applicant in non-pecuniary damages, and £18,011.64 sterling in legal fees and expenses (less 16,093 French francs awarded in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58162. (3 copies)

Memorial of the Turkish Government in the Selçuk and Asker case submitted to the European Court of Human Rights, The Government claims that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies and that it was not the applicants themselves who made the applications. (2 copies)