Showing 46798 results

Published copies of observations of the Government in the Selçuk and Asker case submitted to the European Court of Human Rights regarding the applicants' claims for just satisfaction under Article 50 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government asks the Court to dismiss all claims on the grounds that they are 'baseless' and 'consist of unnecessary and excessive expenses which none of them have been verified'. (4 copies)

Published judgment in the Şemsi Önen case (A44/43/1/47; note the proper spelling of 'Şemsi'). On 14 May 2002, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there had been violations of Articles 2 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that there had been no violations of Article 14 of the Convention. The Turkish Government were ordered to pay €16,000 each to the applicant and her sister Mekiye and $13,000 to each of their surviving siblings in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and £15,000 sterling and £2,500 sterling to Kevin Boyle and Philip Leach, respectively, less the €1,470 and 274 already paid by the Council of Europe in legal aid. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-60451

Published judgment in the Süheyla Aydın case (A44/43/1/13). On 27 March 2003, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled that there the Government was liable for Necati Aydın’s death, and rules that there had been violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Süheyla Aydın was awarded €30,000 in pecuniary damages, €3,500 in non-pecuniary damages, and €20,000 in costs and expenses. €21,000 were also awarded to be held in trust for the heirs of Necati Aydın. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-69139

Published decision of the European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Chamber, to strike out the application of Tahsin Acar lodged on behalf of his brother, Mehmet Salim Acar (this decision would later be referred to a Grand Chamber and overturned on 8 April 2004 as per https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61698). Mehmet Salim Acar had disappeared on 20 August 1994, when he was abducted by two unidentified persons – allegedly plain-clothes police officers. Tahsin Acar complained of the unlawfulness and excessive length of his brother’s detention, of the ill-treatment and acts of torture to which his brother had allegedly been subjected while in detention, and of the failure to provide his brother with the necessary medical care in detention. Tahsin Acar further complained that his brother had been deprived of the services of a lawyer and of all contact with his family.
By a letter of 27 August 2001, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Turkey to the Council of Europe informed the Court as follows:
“... I have the pleasure to enclose herewith the text of a declaration which the Government would be willing to make unilaterally with a view to resolving the ... application. The Government kindly requests the Court to decide that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application and to strike the case out of the list under Article 37 of the Convention.” The relevant parts of the appended declaration read as follows: “I declare that the Government of the Republic of Turkey offer to pay ex gratia to the applicant, Mr Tahsin Acar, the amount of 70,000 pounds sterling [in respect of] the application registered under no. 26307/95. This sum, which covers any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, shall be paid in pounds sterling, free of any taxes that may be applicable and to an account named by the applicant. The sum shall be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the judgment by the Court ... This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application, in particular the disappearance of the applicant’s brother Mr Mehmet Salim Acar and the anguish caused to his family. It is accepted that unrecorded deprivations of liberty and insufficient investigations into allegations of disappearance constitute violations of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures with a view to ensuring that all deprivations of liberty are fully and accurately recorded by the authorities and that effective investigations into alleged disappearances are carried out in accordance with their obligations under the Convention.
The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will be made in this context. To this end, necessary cooperation in this process will continue to take place. ...”
The Chamber accepted the unilateral declaration of the Government. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60418

Published judgment in the Selma Tanrıkulu case (A44/43/1/54). On 18 July 1999, the European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s husband, but that it had not been established that the applicant’s husband was killed in violation of Article 2. The Court also ruled that there had been violations of Article 13 and former Article 25 § 1 (16 votes to 1). The Turkish Government were ordered to pay Selma Tanrıkulu and her children £15,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages and £15,000 sterling in legal fees and expenses (less 13,495 French francs awarded in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58289

Published judgment in the Beşir Taş case (A44/43/1/55). On 14 November 2000, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Turkish Government was liable for the death of Muhsin Taş (6 votes to 1), The Court held: that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the death of Muhsin Taş (unanimous); that there had been no violation of Article 3 in respect of Muhsin Taş (unanimous); that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Beşir Taş (unanimous); that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 (6 votes to 1); and that there had been a violation of Article 13 (6 votes to 1). The Turkish Government were ordered to pay Muhsin Taş’s heirs £20,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages and to pay Beşir Taş £10,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages and £14,795 sterling in legal fees and expenses (less 9,700 French francs awarded in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58976

Published judgment in the Salih Tekin case (A44/43/1/56). On 8 June 1998, the European Court of Human Rights ruled: that there had been no violations of Articles 2, 10, 14, or 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (unanimous); that there had been a violation of Article 3 (6 votes to 3); and that there had been a violation of Article 13 (8 votes to 1. The Turkish Government were ordered to pay Salih Tekin £10,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages and £15,000 sterling in legal fees and expenses. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58196

Printout of the judgment in the case of Socialist Party and others v. Turkey (application number 21237/93, case number 20/1997/804/1007). The Socialist Party, formed on 1 February 1988, was dissolved by a Constitutional Court order on 10 July 1992, which entailed the liquidation of the party and the transfer of its assets to the Treasury. As a consequence, the founders and managers of the party were banned from holding similar office in any other political body. The party was accused by the Turkish Government of being a tool for Kurdish separatism. On 25 May 1998, the European Court of Human Rights held that Turkey had violated Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the two individual applicants 50,000 French francs each in non-pecuniary damages. This case was not part of the Kurdish Litigation Project. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58172

Published judgment in the Mehmet Timurtaş case. On 13 June 2000, the European Court of Human Rights ruled: that Turkey was liable for the death of Abdulvahap Timurtaş in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (6 votes to 1); that there had been violations of Article 3 and 13 (6 votes to 1); that there had been a violation of Article 5 (unanimous); and that Turkey not failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 in fine of the Convention (unanimous). The Turkish Government were ordered to pay Mehmet Timurtaş £20,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages with respect to his son, £10,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages with respect to himself, and £20,000 sterling in legal fees and expenses (less 10,245.06 French francs received in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58901

Published judgment in the Hüseyin Toğcu case (A44/43/1/58; the judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-60419), 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 £70,000 sterling and a statement accepting 'that unrecorded deprivations of liberty and insufficient investigations into allegations of disappearance, such as in the present case, constitute violations of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention'.