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)
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