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'.
Published judgment in the Ülkü Ekinci case (A44/43/1/27). On 16 July 2002, the European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously that there was no violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the applicant's allegation that her husband was killed in circumstances engaging the responsibility of agents of the respondent State, and that there had been no violation of Article 3, and ruled by 6 votes to 1 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 adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant's husband, and that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. The Government were ordered to pay Ülkü Ekinci €15,950 in non-pecuniary damages and £5,200.85 sterling in costs and expenses. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60614
Published judgment in the case of Nabi Yağcı and Nihat Sargin v. Turkey (application numbers 16419/90 and 16426/90, European Court of Human Rights case number 6/1994/453/533-534). Mr Yağcı, a journalist, and Mr Sargin, a doctor, were the general secretaries of the Turkish Workers' Party and the Turkish Communist Party respectively. At a press conference in Brussels in October 1987 they announced their intention of returning to Turkey to found the Turkish United Communist Party (TBKP) and develop its organisation and political action while staying within the law. On arrival at Ankara on 16 November 1987, they were arrested as they alighted from the plane and taken into police custody. On 4 December the public prosecutor's office applied to the Ankara National Security Court to have them placed in
detention pending trial. On 5 December a judge of that court made an order to that effect on the basis of strong evidence of guilt and after hearing the suspects. He charged them with leading an organisation whose aim was to establish the domination of a particular social class and disseminating propaganda to that end and with the intention of abolishing the rights guaranteed in the Constitution; inciting public hostility and hatred; and harming the reputation of the Republic of Turkey, its President, and its Government. Proceedings against the applicant took nearly five years before the pair were acquitted in June 1992.
On 8 June 1995, the Court:
i) dismissed unanimously the preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis;
ii) dismissed unanimously the objection that domestic remedies were not exhausted;
iii) dismissed unanimously the objection based on loss of victim status;
iv) held by eight votes to one that there had been a breach of Article 5 paragraph 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the length of the applicants' detention;
v) held by eight votes to one that there has been a breach of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the criminal proceedings;
vi) by eight votes to one that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months, 30,000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(vii) held unanimously that the respondent State is to pay the two applicants jointly, within three months, 38,000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses and 30,000 French francs in respect of lawyers' fees;
(viii) dismissed unanimously the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.
This was not a Kurdish Litigation Project case. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-57938
Published judgment in the Eşref Yaşa case (A44/43/1/60). On 2 September 1998, the European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously that it has not been established that Eşref Yaşa was attacked and his uncle killed in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights; ruled by 8 votes to 1 that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in that the Turkish authorities did not conduct an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of the said incidents; and ruled by 8 votes to 1 that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. The Turkish Government were ordered to pay Eşref Yaşa £6,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages and £12,000 sterling in legal fees and expenses (less 8,045 French francs received in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58238