CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 septembre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s8A4FD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s37A2CD33 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sDFF9B1EC { width:27.55pt; display:inline-block } .s50CE0C8D { width:228.48pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .sD49C56F { width:262.16pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 33323/96 by Paşa AYGÖRDÜ and Others against Turkey     The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 September 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mrs   E. Palm, President ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson,   Mr   C. Bîrsan,   Mr   J. Casadevall,   Mr   R. Maruste, judges ,   Mr   F. Gölcüklü, ad hoc judge , and   Mr   M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 September 1996 and registered on 3 October 1996,     Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,     Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicants are Turkish nationals, born in 1928, 1963, 1930, 1949 and   1954 respectively and living in Istanbul, Turkey. They are represented before the Court by Mr   Özcan Kılıç and Mr Mehmet Ali Kırdök, lawyers practising in Istanbul.   A.   The circumstances of the case     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.     1.   Applicants’ version of the facts     Until 4 October 1994 the applicants lived in the Kızılveren hamlet of the Hanuşağı village attached to the Ovacık district in the province of Tunceli. Since 1980 the inhabitants of the applicants’ village had been continually intimidated by security forces as they were suspected of giving logistic support to terrorists.     On 4 October 1994 military units arrived in the applicants’ hamlet. They convened the inhabitants in the hamlet square and told them to leave their houses. The applicants, along with their fellow villagers, left the hamlet taking their animals and as many belongings as they could carry. Following the eviction of the inhabitants, the security forces set the hamlet on fire.     On the same day, 4 October 1994, the applicants filed a petition with the chief public prosecutor’s office in the Ovacık district complaining of the burning of their houses and requesting compensation for the damage they had suffered. As the case concerned an investigation of acts allegedly committed by the security forces, the public prosecutor issued a decision of non ‑ jurisdiction and referred the investigation file to the Ovacık District Governor’s office in accordance with the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants ( Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu ).        The applicants first moved to the Ziyaret village attached to the Ovacık district, where the Government provided them with public-sector housing designated for cases of calamity. Following their arrival, the applicants sold their animals and belongings in order to provide for their livelihood. After a certain lapse of time, they moved out to live with their relatives in Istanbul.        On 25 October 1995 the District Governor of Ovacık wrote a letter in reply to the applicants. He stated that no house had been burned by the security forces and that no prosecution had been   started since the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified. The District Governor’s letter was served on the mayor of the village ( muhtar ) on 15   February 1996 as the applicants had left the hamlet. The applicants allege that they were informed of the District   Governor’s letter on a much later date.     2.   Government’s version of the facts     At the time of the alleged incidents, the inhabitants of the villages of the Tunceli province lived in a daily atmosphere of intense terrorist campaign. The terrorists in the region attacked villages with a view to sustaining their needs. As a result of the pressure exerted by the terrorists the inhabitants left their villages in order not to place their lives at risk. The   terrorists distributed announcements amongst the villagers threatening them that they would seize their property and punish them if they were to leave their villages.     There is no information or any document indicating that the security forces carried out operations in the Kızılveren hamlet of the Hanuşağı village on 4 October 1994.     The authorities carried out investigation into the alleged destruction of the villages in the Tunceli province. To that end, statements were taken from Mr Mahmut Atlı and Mr   Rahmi   Kızılçayır living in the Işıkvuran and Çat villages respectively, both attached to the Ovacık district. Mr Mahmut Atlı stated that they had been repeatedly threatened by terrorists and that their houses had been burned by the PKK terrorists on the ground that 6   young men abducted from their village had returned to their homes and refused to rejoin the organisation. Mr Rahmi Kızılçayır stated that their houses had been burned by the terrorists who wanted to punish villagers on account of their refusal to give logistic support to the terrorists.     Upon their request, District Governor of Ovacık supplied the applicants with lodging in the public buildings. They received each monetary aid and food from the authorities.   B.   Relevant domestic law and practice     1.   Administrative liability     Article   125 of the Turkish Constitution provides as follows:     “All acts and decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review...   The administration shall be liable to indemnify any damage caused by its own acts and measures.”     The above provision is not subject to any restrictions even in a state of emergency or war. The latter requirement does not necessarily require proof of the existence of any fault on the part of the administration, whose responsibility is of an absolute, objective nature, based on a concept of collective liability and referred to as the theory of “social risk”. Thus the administration may indemnify people who have suffered damage from acts committed by unknown or terrorist instigators when the State may be said to have failed in its duty to maintain public order and safety, or in its duty to safeguard individual life and property.     The principle of administrative liability is reflected in the additional section   1 of Law no.   2935 of   25 October 1983 on the State of Emergency, which provides:   “... actions for compensation in relation to the exercise of the powers conferred by this Law are to be brought against the administration before the administrative courts.”     2.   Criminal responsibility     It is an offence under the Turkish Criminal Code   - to make an unlawful search of an individual’s home (Articles   193 and 194);   - to commit arson (Articles   369, 370, 371, 372) or aggravated arson if human life is endangered (Article   382);   - to commit arson unintentionally by carelessness, negligence or inexperience (Article   383); or   to damage another’s property intentionally (Articles   516 et seq.).     For all these offences complaints may be lodged, pursuant to Articles   151 and   153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the public prosecutor or the local administrative authorities. The public prosecutor and the police have a duty to investigate crimes reported to them, the former deciding whether a prosecution should be initiated, pursuant to Article   148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A complainant may appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings.     If the suspected authors of the contested acts are military personnel, they may also be prosecuted for causing extensive damage, endangering human life or damaging property, if they have not followed orders in conformity with Articles   86 and   87 of the Military Code. Proceedings in these circumstances may be initiated by the persons concerned (non-military) before the competent authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure, or before the suspected persons’ hierarchical superior (sections   93 and   95 of Law no.   353 on the Constitution and Procedure of Military Courts).     If the suspected author of a crime is an agent of the State, permission to prosecute must be obtained from a local administrative council (the Executive Committee of the Provincial Assembly). The local council decisions may be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court; a refusal to prosecute is subject to an automatic appeal of this kind.     3.   Provisions on compensation     Any illegal act by civil servants, be it a crime or a tort, which causes material or moral damage may be the subject of a claim for compensation before the ordinary civil courts. Proceedings against the administration may be brought before the administrative courts, whose proceedings are in writing. Damage caused by terrorist violence may be compensated out of the Aid and Social Solidarity Fund.     COMPLAINTS     The applicants complain of violations of Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.     The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was breached on account of their forced eviction from their village, destruction of their house and possessions.     The applicants maintain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment as well as collective punishment since they were forcibly evicted from their village and their property was destroyed.     The applicants allege under Article 5 of the Convention that they were deprived of   their liberty and security on account of their forced eviction from their village.     The applicants   contend under Article 6 of the Convention that they were deprived of their right of access to a court in order to assert their civil rights. They maintain that remedies in domestic law are ineffective.     The applicants submit under Article 8 of the Convention that their right to respect for their family life was violated since they were forcibly evicted from their home and village.     The applicants allege a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the failure of the authorities to provide an effective remedy to enable them to challenge the destruction of their home and possessions.     The applicants complain under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with the above-mentioned Articles, that they were discriminated against on the ground of their Kurdish origin.     The applicants complain under Article 18 of the Convention that the Turkish authorities do not take any measures in order to prevent violation of their aforesaid rights.     THE LAW     The applicants complain of their forced eviction from their village and the destruction of their homes and possessions by the security forces. They invoke Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   A.   Government’s preliminary objections     The Government submit that the applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies available to them within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They assert, in the alternative, that the applicants failed to comply with the six-month rule as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and, on that account, their application should be declared inadmissible.       The Government maintain that simply by addressing a letter to the Public Prosecutor’s office the applicants cannot be considered to have exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.     The Government submit that there exist administrative, criminal and civil law remedies in Turkish law capable of redressing the applicant’s complaints and leading to the grant of compensation.     The Government contend that it would have been possible for the applicants to seek redress before the administrative courts under Article 125 of the Constitution and Law   no.   2935 and legislative Decree no. 430. Under Turkish administrative law the State’s liability to pay compensation can be engaged, firstly, where the agents of the State are at fault. The   State can subsequently recover the compensation paid from those responsible for the harm caused. Secondly, the State cannot escape liability to pay compensation in respect of damage shown to have been caused by its agents or to have occurred in connection with the provision of security.     The Government submit in the alternative that the applicants could have also lodged a civil action for damage sustained through illegal acts or patently unlawful conduct on the part of the State’s agents. Under Turkish law the civil action does not depend on the outcome of the criminal proceedings and the procedural requirements are less strict. The Government further point out that, if committed, the alleged acts complained of by the applicants before the Court would indeed have been punishable under Turkish criminal law.     In the Government’s opinion, even if it could assumed that there was no remedy to be exhausted in domestic law, which they dispute, then the application should have been lodged with the Commission within six months from the date of the alleged incidents.     The applicants contend in reply that they lodged criminal complaints with the public prosecutor’s office in Ovacık and that no effective investigation was carried out into their complaints. In their submission, there is an administrative practice of failure to provide an effective remedy for abuses carried out by the security forces and an administrative practice of destruction of villages in south east Turkey. The applicants maintain that they were not required to pursue any further domestic remedy and that the criminal, administrative and civil remedies relied on by the Government are not effective.     As regards the Government’s assertion that the application was not lodged within the six months’ time-limit, the applicants submit that they awaited the outcome of the criminal investigation into their complaints. However, the authorities did not carry out any investigation into their allegations and that they applied to the Commission considering that their fellow villagers’ similar complaints had already been rejected by the authorities.     In sum, the applicants claim that they have done all that could be expected of them in order to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1of the Convention. They therefore request the Court to reject the Government’s preliminary objections.     The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article   35 § 1 of the Convention obliges those seeking to bring their case against the State before an international judicial or arbitral organ to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system. However, there is no obligation under Article 35 § 1 to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective. In addition, according to the “generally recognised rules of international law”, there may be special circumstances which absolve the applicants from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies at their disposal; one such reason being the failure of the national authorities to undertake an investigation or offer assistance in response to serious allegations of misconduct or infliction of harm by State agents (see the Akdivar and Others v. Turkey judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ IV, pp.   1210 ‑ 11, §§   65-69, and the Menteş and Others v. Turkey judgment of 28   November 1997, Reports 1997 ‑ VIII, p.   2706, §   57).     The application of the rule of exhaustion must make due allowance for the fact that it is being applied in the context of machinery for the protection of human rights that the Contracting Parties have agreed to set up. Accordingly, the Court has recognised that Article   35 § 1 must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism. The rule is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically. In reviewing whether it has been observed it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each case. This means, amongst other things, that the Court must take realistic account of the general legal and political context in which the remedies operate, as well as the personal circumstances of the applicant or applicants (see the above-mentioned Menteş and Others judgment, p.   2707, §   58).     In this connection, the Court observes that following the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s decision of non-jurisdiction in relation to the security forces the authorities have not conducted any further investigation into the applicant’s allegations. On the contrary, the national authorities, such as the District Governor of Ovacık as well as other administrative authorities, remained totally passive in the face of serious allegations of misconduct by State agents and no one has been charged by the judicial authorities. Moreover, it appears that the ensuing investigation has been limited to the taking of statements from two villagers who are not living in the applicants’ village.     However, for the Court, when an individual formulates an arguable claim in respect of destruction of property, torture or killing involving the responsibility of the State, the notion of an “effective remedy”, in the sense of Article 13 of the Convention, entails, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and including effective access by the complainant to the investigative procedure (see the above-mentioned Menteş and Others judgment, p.   2715, §   89; the Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2287, § 98; and the Kaya v. Turkey judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 330, § 107). Otherwise, if an action based on the State’s strict liability were to be considered a legal action that had to be exhausted in respect of complaints under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereof, the State’s obligation to pursue those guilty of such serious breaches might thereby disappear. The   Court   considers that the applicants’ allegations, of which - as was clear from their petition of 4 October 1994 the authorities were aware - amounted to an arguable claim in respect of both the alleged acts and the status of the persons implicated.     Accordingly, given the lack of effective investigation by the authorities into their complaints there was no requirement for the applicants to pursue any further remedy in domestic law.     In so far as the Government argues that the applicants’ complaints have been introduced out of time, the Court reiterates that where no domestic remedy is available the six   months’ time-limit contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in principle runs from the date of the act complained of in the application (see application no. 23413/94, decision of 28   November 1995, DR 83, p. 31).     However, special considerations could apply in exceptional cases where an applicant first avails himself of a domestic remedy and only at a later stage becomes aware, or should have become aware, of the circumstances which make that remedy ineffective. In such a situation, the six months’ period might be calculated from the time when the applicant becomes aware, or should have become aware, of these circumstances (see application no.   23654/94, decision of 15 May 1995, DR 81, p. 76).     The Court notes that the applicants complained of the destruction of their property and evacuation of their village in their petition of 4 October 1994 addressed to the Ovacık Chief Public Prosecutor’s office. Following the receipt of the investigation file from the Public Prosecutor, the District Governor of Ovacık dismissed the applicants’ allegations on the grounds that their houses had not been burned by the security forces and that the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified. This decision was served on the village muhtar on 15 February 1996 and the applicants were apprised of it on a much later date since they were no longer living in their village. It appears therefore that the applicants lodged their application under the Convention on 5 September 1996 after having learned the Ovacık District Governor’s negative answer and beginning to doubt that an effective investigation would be initiated into their complaints by the national authorities. In these circumstances, the Court accepts that the six months’ time-limit within the meaning of Article   35 § 1 of the Convention started to run as from 5   September 1996 at the earliest and, consequently, that the application has been brought within this time-limit.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Government’s preliminary objections must be dismissed.   B.   Merits     As regards the substance of the applicants’ complaints, the Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the case raises complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits of the applications as a whole. The Court concludes, therefore, that the application is not manifestly   ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.         Michael O’Boyle   Elisabeth Palm   Registrar   President