CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s61A5E261 { width:17pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5B12D80C { width:187.62pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       SECOND SECTION             CASE OF CANGÖZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   (Application no. 7469/06)               JUDGMENT ( Revision )       STRASBOURG     19 September 2017     FINAL   19/12/2017   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Cangöz and Others v. Turkey, (request for revision of the judgment of 26 April 2016), The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Julia Laffranque, President,   Işıl Karakaş,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Valeriu Griţco,   Ksenija Turković,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Georges Ravarani, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 29 August 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 7469/06) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by seventeen Turkish nationals (“the applicants”) on 6   February 2006. 2.     In a judgment delivered on 26 April 2016 the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive and procedural aspects on account of the killing of the applicants’ seventeen relatives by soldiers and on account of the failure to carry out an effective investigation into the killings. The Court also decided to award each of the seventeen applicants 65,000 euros (EUR) for non ‑ pecuniary damage and to award jointly to the seventeen applicants, EUR   13,677 for costs and expenses. 3.     On 26 October 2016 the applicants’ representatives informed the Court that they had learned that five of the applicants, namely Mustafa Cangöz, Nari Ataş, Mehmet Akdeniz, İbrahim Turgut and Hatice Karaoğlu, had died in 2015, 2013, 2010, 2015 and 2011 respectively and that a number of their heirs wished to pursue the application. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.     On 21 February 2017 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the Government six weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 5 April 2017. On 26   April 2017 the applicants submitted to the Court their observations in reply. THE LAW THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 5.     The applicants’ representatives requested revision of the judgment of 26   April 2016 which they had been unable to have executed because five of the seventeen applicants, namely Mustafa Cangöz, Nari Ataş, Mehmet   Akdeniz, İbrahim Turgut and Hatice Karaoğlu had died before the judgment had been adopted. 6.     Relying on official documentation, the legal representatives informed the Court that Ali Cangöz, Rıza Cangöz, Hıdır Cangöz, Aliye Gül, Ayten   Akyıldız, İbrahim Ataş, Emine Akdeniz, Sultan Turgut, Nihayet   Kılınç, İnayet Erdoğan, Perihan Kaya, Ayhan Gürocak and Songül   Koyunoğlu were heirs of the above-mentioned deceased applicants and should therefore receive the sums awarded to the deceased applicants. 7.     The Government stated that the applicants Mustafa Cangöz, Nari   Ataş, Mehmet Akdeniz, İbrahim Turgut and Hatice Karaoğlu had died long before the delivery of the judgment of 26 April 2016 but that neither their heirs nor their legal representative had informed the Court about their demise in due time. The Government also referred to the parties’ duty to cooperate fully with the Court in the conduct of the proceedings (see Rule   44A of the Rules of Court), and asked the Court to draw “the necessary conclusions”, within the meaning of Rule 44C of the Rules of Court, from the failure to inform the Court in a timely manner about the demise of these applicants. 8.     The applicants’ legal representatives responded by submitting that there had been no developments between the submission of the applicants’ observations to the Court in 2009 and the delivery of the judgment on 26   April 2016 to lead them to contact the applicants and it was not therefore reasonable to expect them to have become aware of the demise of the five applicants during that period. 9.     As for the Government’s reference to Rule 44A and C of the Rules of Court, the Court observes that it has already examined and rejected similar arguments raised by the same respondent Government in two comparable cases (see Benzer and Others v. Turkey (revision), no.   23502/06, §   13, 13   January 2015, and Gülbahar Özer and Others v.   Turkey (revision), no.   44125/06, § 9, 10 June 2014). The Court finds no particular circumstances in the instant case which would require it to depart from its finding in those cases. It finds it unnecessary, therefore, to draw any inferences from the failure to inform the Court at an earlier stage about the demise of five of the applicants. 10.     The Court notes from the documents submitted to it that the relationship of the above-mentioned heirs to the five deceased applicants was as follows: (i)     Ali Cangöz, Rıza Cangöz, Hıdır Cangöz, Aliye Gül and Ayten   Akyıldız are the children of the deceased applicant Mustafa   Cangöz, and they are, therefore, siblings of Cafer Cangöz who was killed by the soldiers; (ii)     İbrahim Ataş was the husband of the deceased applicant Nari   Ataş and is, therefore, the father of Alattin Ataş who was killed by the soldiers; (iii)     Emine Akdeniz was the wife of the deceased applicant Mehmet Akdeniz and is therefore the mother of İbrahim Akdeniz who was killed by the soldiers; (iv)     Sultan Turgut was the wife of the deceased applicant İbrahim   Turgut and is therefore the mother of Dursun Turgut who was killed by the soldiers; and (v)     Nihayet Kılınç, İnayet Erdoğan, Perihan Kaya, Ayhan Gürocak and Songül Koyunoğlu are the children of the deceased applicant Hatice Karaoğlu and they are, therefore, siblings of Ökkeş Karaoğlu who was killed by the soldiers. 11.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that these thirteen heirs have standing to pursue the application in their five deceased relatives’ stead (see, inter alia , Benzer and Others , cited above, §   12 and Gülbahar Özer and Others , cited above, § 8 and the cases cited therein). It observes that they have expressed their intention to do so and requested that the judgment be revised. 12.     The Court considers that the judgment of 26 April 2016 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the relevant parts of which provide: “A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court ... to revise that judgment. ...” 13.     It accordingly decides to award the amounts it previously awarded to the deceased applicants as follows: -     to Ali Cangöz, Rıza Cangöz, Hıdır Cangöz, Aliye Gül and Ayten   Akyıldız jointly the sum awarded to their deceased father Mustafa   Cangöz, namely EUR 65,000, for non-pecuniary damage; -     to İbrahim Ataş the sum awarded to his deceased wife Nari Ataş, namely EUR 65,000, for non-pecuniary damage; -     to Emine Akdeniz the sum awarded to her deceased husband Mehmet   Akdeniz, namely EUR 65,000, for non-pecuniary damage; -     to Sultan Turgut the sum awarded to her deceased husband İbrahim   Turgut, namely EUR 65,000, for non-pecuniary damage; and -     to Nihayet Kılınç, İnayet Erdoğan, Perihan Kaya, Ayhan Gürocak and Songül Koyunoğlu jointly the sum awarded to their deceased mother Hatice   Karaoğlu, namely EUR 65,000, for non-pecuniary damage. 14.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to revise its judgment of 26   April 2016 in so far as it concerns the claims made by the deceased applicants Mustafa Cangöz, Nari Ataş, Mehmet Akdeniz, İbrahim Turgut and Hatice Karaoğlu under Article   41 of the Convention;     and accordingly,   2.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay to the following heirs, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article   44   §   2 of the Convention, the following amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable; (i)     EUR 65,000 (sixty-five thousand euros) jointly to Ali Cangöz, Rıza Cangöz, Hıdır Cangöz, Aliye Gül and Ayten Akyıldız; (ii)     EUR 65,000 (sixty-five thousand euros) to İbrahim Ataş; (iii)     EUR 65,000 (sixty-five thousand euros) to Emine Akdeniz; (iv)     EUR 65,000 (sixty-five thousand euros) to Sultan Turgut; and (v)     EUR 65,000 (sixty-five thousand euros) jointly to Nihayet   Kılınç, İnayet Erdoğan, Perihan Kaya, Ayhan Gürocak and Songül Koyunoğlu; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 September 2017, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Stanley Naismith   Julia Laffranque   Registrar   President