CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 15 septembre 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }      EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS   Application No. 23530/94   Ramazan Beyaz   against   Turkey   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 15 September 1997)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   I.    THE PARTIES      (paras. 1-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1   II.   SUMMARY OF THE FACTS      (paras. 4-13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1   III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION      (paras. 14-28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2   IV.   THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 29-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5   APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE           ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION   . . . . . . . . .6   I.    THE PARTIES 1.    This Report, which is drawn up in accordance with Article 30 para. 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerns the application brought by Ramazan Beyaz against Turkey.   2.    The applicant was born in 1964 and at the time of the introduction of the application resided in Lice, Diyarbakir province. In the proceedings before the Commission the applicant was represented by Professor Kevin Boyle and Ms Françoise Hampson.   3.    The Government of Turkey were represented by Mr Riza Türmen, their Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe.   II.   SUMMARY OF THE FACTS   4.    The facts of the case, which are in dispute between the parties, are set out in the Commission's decision on admissibility of 11 September 1995, annexed hereto, and may be summarised as follows:   5.    According to the applicant, as an act of vengeance for a PKK raid, Government security forces attacked his village on 10 August 1993 and razed it to the ground. This operation of destruction apparently took two days.   6.    When the applicant returned to the village after these two days, almost all of the 60 households in the village had been burnt and destroyed.   No habitable houses were left in the village. Also the house in which the applicant and his family lived was destroyed.   7.    The applicant has not received any explanation for the alleged destruction of his home, his possessions and his village. Nor has he been interviewed by the prosecutor or any other authority in connection with this destruction or received any assistance whatsoever arising from this military attack.   8.    In response to the Government's allegations to the contrary, the applicant submits that following the alleged events he has frequently petitioned the authorities, including the appointed mayor, about his losses. He has submitted oral and written petitions seeking compensation. He has had a lawyer draw up a written petition for submission to the authorities but they refused to accept his petition. The applicant has not supplied the Commission with any documentary evidence of these attempts to obtain compensation or redress.   9.    According to the Government, the applicant's village has indeed been abandoned by its inhabitants but as a result of the economic hardship suffered through the activities of the PKK in the area rather than as a consequence of any action on the part of the security forces. Following the departure of the villagers the houses deteriorated and, given that their roofs were made of mud, collapsed.   10.   Following the communication of the present application to the Turkish Government in May 1994, the public prosecutor of the Lice district commenced a preliminary investigation into the incident.   11.   On 21 February 1995 the public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and the file was transferred to the District Administrative Council under the special procedure for the prosecution of public officials.   12.   On 27 June 1996 the District Administrative Council decided unanimously not to start any criminal proceedings against the security forces for lack of evidence.   13.   The applicant complained to the Commission that a raid was carried out by the security forces on his village, in the course of which his house and possessions were destroyed. He invoked various Articles of the Convention - Article 3 (the prohibition on inhuman and degrading   treatment), Article 6 (the right of access to court), Article 8 (the right to respect for family life and the home), Article 13 (the right to effective national remedies for Convention breaches), Article 14 (the prohibition on discrimination) and Article 18 (the prohibition on using authorised Convention restrictions for ulterior purposes), as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (the right to property).   III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   14.   The application was introduced on 9 February 1994 and registered on 24 February 1994.   15.   On 9 May 1994 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   16.   The Government's observations were submitted on 1 March 1995 after two extensions of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The applicant replied on 15 May 1995 after an extension of the time-limit.   17.   On 11 September 1995 the Commission declared the application admissible. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 14 September 1995. The parties were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. They were also invited to indicate the oral evidence they might wish to put before Delegates of the Commission.   18.   On 6 December 1995 the Government submitted additional information to the Commission. On 19 December 1995 the Commission received a letter from the applicant directly stating that the statements contained in his application were incorrect and that he had not authorised any persons to act on his behalf. On 26 March 1996 the applicant's representatives commented on the submissions of 6 and 19 December 1995.   19.   On 13 April 1996 the Commission decided to take oral evidence in the applicant's case. It notified the parties by letter of 25 April 1996 requesting them, inter alia, to indicate which persons they wished to be heard by the Delegates.   20.   On 13 June 1996 the applicant submitted proposals for the taking of oral evidence. The Government submitted information requested by the Commission on 22 August 1996, 20 September 1996 and 24 January 1997.   21.   A hearing in order to take oral evidence in the present case was scheduled to be held from 10 to 14 March 1997 in Ankara.   22.   By letter of 3 March 1997 the applicant's representatives informed the Commission that they had been unable to establish contacts with the applicant or any of the proposed witnesses.   23.   On 6 March 1997, the Commission decided not to proceed with the hearing and to seek the parties' views as to the future proceedings.   24.   By letter of 29 March 1997, the Government requested the Commission to strike the application out of its list of pending cases.   25.   By letter of 4 April 1997, the applicant's representatives requested the Commission to grant them a reasonable delay for establishing contacts with the applicant in order to seek clarification as to his wish to continue with his application.   26.   On 12 April 1997 the Commission decided to grant the applicant's representatives a delay until 14 July 1997 to establish contacts with the applicant. When this time-limit expired, no reaction had been received from the applicant's representatives.   27.   On 15 September 1997 the Commission decided to strike the present application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention. 28.   It adopted the present Report and decided to transmit it to the Committee of Ministers and the Parties for information and to publish it.   The following members of the Commission were present when the Report was adopted:             Mr.   S. TRECHSEL, President           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER                H. DANELIUS                F. MARTINEZ                C.L. ROZAKIS                L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                P. LORENZEN                K. HERNDL                E. BIELIUNAS                E.A. ALKEMA           Mrs. M. HION           MM.   R. NICOLINI                A. ARABADJIEV   IV.   THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION   29.   The Commission notes that the applicant's representatives apparently have been unable to establish any contacts with the applicant.   30.   The Commission finds that, in these circumstances, the applicant has failed to keep his representatives informed of his whereabouts and must, therefore, be considered to have lost interest in pursuing his application to the Commission.   31.   In the light of the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.   32.   Moreover, as regards the issues raised in the present case, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect for Human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,   DECIDES TO STRIKE APPLICATION No. 23530/94 OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES;   ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;   DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers and the Parties for information, and to publish it.           H.C. KRÜGER                          S. TRECHSEL          Secretary                         President      to the Commission                     of the Commission