CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 5 décembre 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sA54E3CC5 { font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s755EE6C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt } .sDA147922 { width:25.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s92848351 { width:23.22pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)254 Özbek contre Turquie Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   Requête n o Affaire Arrêt du Définitif le 25327/04 ÖZBEK 27/05/2010 27/08/2010   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 5 décembre 2013, lors de la 1186e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu l’arrêt définitif transmis par la Cour au Comité dans cette affaire et la violation constatée   ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -                  de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum   ; et -                  de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables   ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt, et notant qu’aucune satisfaction équitable n’a été octroyée par la Cour dans la présente affaire (voir document ( DH-DD(2013)431 [1] )   ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Execution of European Court of Human Rights Judgment in the case of Özbek v. Turkey (25327/04) dated 27 May 2010   ACTION REPORT (anglais uniquement)   A.   FACTS   The applicant Nuri Özbek had initiated compensation proceedings for the unlawful occupation of his land. He complained that he had been deprived of his right to property due to the dismissal of these proceedings.   B.   CONTENT OF THE JUDGMENT   With its judgment dated 27 May 2010, the European Court of Human Rights ("the Court") found the applicant’s complaint reasonable. The Court stated that the unlawful occupation of the applicant’s land by the Military Forces and not being paid any compensation for it was in violation of the right to property.   The Court did not award the applicant any compensation since the applicant had not made a claim for it.   C.   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   1 - Damages and Court expenses   Re-opening of a hearing is regulated by Article 375 in the Code of Civil Procedure. According to this regulation, the applicant should apply for the reopening of the trial within 3 months after the arrival of legal notification of the ECtHR’s judgement. The applicant had not applied for the renewal of the trial even though he had the opportunity to do so. It should also be emphasised that the re-opening of judicial proceedings can only be initiated with a claim made to that effect by the applicant himself.   2 - Removal of the Fences and Returning of the Land to the Applicant   The fences that surrounded the applicant’s land have been removed and the land in question was excluded from the military zone. The applicant was informed of this situation with the letter of the 3’d Corps Commandership dated 17 January 2002.   D.   GENERAL MEASURES   1 - Translation and publication of the judgment   The Özbek judgment was translated into Turkish and published on the official website of Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Justice. This judgment is available at http://www.inhak.adalet.gov.tr/ara/karar/ozbek.pdf .   In addition, the translation of the judgment was sent primarily to the court that rendered the judgment and to the relevant authorities such as the Human Rights Inquiry Committee of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, the Human Rights Department of the Prime Ministry, the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, the Ministry of Interior, and the Ministry of Finance.   2 - Individual application before the Constitutional Court   Individual application was introduced into the Turkish legal system by the 2010 constitutional amendments, and since 23 September 2012, the Constitutional Court has been receiving applications. Article 148 of the Constitution stipulates that anyone who thinks that his/her constitutional rights set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights have been infringed by a public authority will have a right to apply to the Constitutional Court after exhausting other domestic remedies.   After examination, the Constitutional Court decides whether the fundamental rights of the applicant have been violated or not. If it finds violation, it may also decide what should be done in order to redress the violation and its consequences.     In case the violation has been caused by a court decision, the Constitutional Court sends the file to the competent court for retrial in order to restore the fundamental rights of the applicant. But, if the Constitutional Court deems that there will be no use of a re-trial, then it may award compensation to the applicant or it may ask the applicant to file a case before the competent first-instance court to seek compensation for the damages s/he suffered.   3 - Training and Awareness Raising Activities   On 21-22 May 2012 and 24-25 May 2012, the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors and Justice Academy of Turkey organised a training sessions under "In-Service Training on Expropriation Cases" in Ankara for the judges who hear expropriation cases. The participants were provided with training on "Trial Procedure in Expropriation Law, Confiscating without Expropriating and Evaluation of the ECtHR Judgments". This training session raised the awareness of participants on the evolving case-law of the ECtHR who were the judges who hear expropriation cases.   E.   EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT   The Government firstly underlines the fact that the case is of an isolated nature and the case does not stem from a systemic problem. Secondly, the Government maintains that Turkey has taken all the necessary general measures and that no further individual measure is needed for the execution of the Nuri Özbek judgment. The Government therefore respectfully invites the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of the case.   [1] Anglais uniquement.