CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 juillet 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFBB1651C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s90979B76 { width:30.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFF751BF8 { width:148.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 449/12 Aysel AKTAŞ and Salih AKTAŞ against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7   July 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Valeriu Griţco, President,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 December 2011, 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 1.     The applicants, Ms Aysel Aktaş and Mr Salih Aktaş, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1963 and 1964 respectively and live in Diyarbakır. They were represented before the Court by Ms   R.   Yalçındağ   Baydemir and Ms R. Bataray Saman, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     The applicants’ son, İlyas Aktaş, who was a university student at the material time, was working also as a correspondent for a newspaper. 5.     Following the death of fourteen members of a terrorist organisation during an armed confrontation on 24 March 2006, several demonstrations were organised in Diyarbakır between 28 and 31 March 2006. 6.     On 30 March 2006 the applicants’ son was shot, allegedly, by members of security forces while covering the events in the vicinity of a police station. On 14 April 2006 he died in a hospital in Ankara. 7.     The initial post-mortem examination identified a bullet injury around the nasal area. The additional examination of 5 January 2007 determined the cause of death as a rubber bullet injury. 8.     On 19 January 2007 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor issued a continued search warrant. 9.     On 29 March 2007 the applicants made submissions to the prosecutor’s office. 10.     On 10 June 2008 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate provided a list of names of officers who had been posted to the Diyarbakır province and the firearms in their possession. 11.     On 30 December 2009 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor requested the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to provide a list of police officers who had been near the police station where the applicants’ son had been shot. He further requested information as to whether any officers had been in possession of a gas gun model 10. On 23 February 2010 the security directorate forwarded the same list of names that had previously been submitted on 10 June 2008 and stated that none of the officers had used that specific type of gun at the relevant time. 12.     Between October 2010 and July 2011 the public prosecutor took the statements of eleven police officers, who all denied any involvement in the shooting of the applicants’ son. Subsequently, after the introduction of the present application with the Court, on 11 December 2012 the prosecutor decided not to initiate proceedings against these officers. 13.     On an unspecified date, the applicants lodged a civil claim for damages with the administrative courts. On 29 November 2012 Diyarbakır Administrative Court awarded the applicants a total of 108,834.82   Turkish   liras for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. At the time of lodging the present application, the administrative proceedings were still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court. COMPLAINTS 14.     The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 14 and 17 of the Convention, that the security forces had killed their son by an intentional and targeted act of violence because he was of Kurdish origin. They alleged, under the same head that, the Government had breached their positive obligation to protect their son’s life. 15.     The applicants further maintained under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that the national authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the killing of their son. 16.     Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the treatment that they themselves had suffered as a result of the killing of their son, and the ensuing failure on the side of the authorities to identify his killer. THE LAW 17.     The applicants complained that their son had been killed by the security forces and that the authorities had failed their obligation to protect their son’s life, and also to investigate his killing. 18.     They further alleged that losing their son coupled with the failure to identify the perpetrators had caused them great pain. They invoked Articles   2, 3, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention. 19.     The Government raised a number of preliminary objections and argued that the application at issue is inadmissible. In particular they stated that the application had been lodged out of the six months’ time-limit as the applicants should have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the proceedings at an earlier stage. Alternatively, they alleged that there has been no violation of the Convention Articles relied upon by the applicants. 20.     The Court does not deem it necessary to examine the remainder of the Government’s preliminary objections as, for the reasons stated below, the application is inadmissible for being introduced out of time. 21.     At the outset, the Court reiterates that the purpose of the six-month rule is to promote security of law and to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time. Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Torlak and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos 48176/11, 13669/12, 62981/12, § 40, 29   May 2018; Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; and Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR   2002-III). 22.     As a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In cases concerning deprivation of life, if no remedies are available or if they are judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit in principle runs from the date of the act complained about by the applicant. Special considerations may apply in exceptional cases where applicants first avail themselves of a domestic remedy and only at a later stage become aware, or should have become aware, of circumstances which make that remedy ineffective. In such a situation, the six-month period might be calculated from the time when the applicant becomes aware, or should have become aware, of these circumstances (see also Han v. Turkey (dec.), no.   31248/09, 15   January 2013). In this connection, in a number of cases concerning the death of the applicants’ relatives, the Court has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should have started doubting the effectiveness of a domestic remedy. Although the Court refrained from indicating a specific period for establishing when an investigation has become ineffective for the purposes of assessing when the six-month period begins to run, the determination of such a period by the Court depended on the circumstances of each case and other factors such as the diligence and interest displayed by the applicants as well as the adequacy of the investigation in question (see Acar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 33614/10, § 26, 10 December 2013). 23.     In the present application, the applicants’ son was shot on 30   March 2006. He died on 14 April 2006. On 5   January 2007 an autopsy report established the cause of death as a rubber bullet injury, and on 19   January 2007 the Diyarbakır Prosecutor issued a permanent search warrant for the perpetrators. The applicants do not claim that they had not been informed about this warrant. 24.     The Court notes that although on 30 December 2009 the prosecutor requested the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to provide a list of officers who had been on duty at the material time, according to the submissions of the Government, in their reply of 23 February 2010 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate shared the previous list once again (see paragraph 13 above). 25.     The Court is of the opinion that the effectiveness of the investigation carried out into the killing of the applicants’ son had become questionable at the very early stages of the investigation given that the Diyarbakır Prosecutor had issued a permanent search warrant in January 2007 and that there were long delays between any new investigative step. The applicants neither submitted any valid explanation as to reasons why they waited until 1   December 2011 to bring their case before the Court. (see Torlak and others, § 42, cited above). 26.     The Court reiterates that it has already examined similar complaints arising out of the same incidents in March 2006 in Diyarbakır in the case of Torlak and others (cited above) and declared those applications inadmissible due to non-compliance with the six-month time-limit. It has also examined the present case and finds no particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its findings in those cases. The Court therefore finds that the applicants, who waited for more than five years following the death of their son, although the criminal investigation had apparently been ineffective, failed to comply with the six-month time-limit. 27.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the application has been introduced out of time and should be declared inadmissible as a whole under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 17 September 2020.   Hasan Bakırcı   Valeriu Griţco   Deputy Registrar   President