CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 avril 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 10 April 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 50480/09 Yasemin ÜLGEN against Turkey lodged on 4 September 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 29 March 1995 a soldier, M.A. was wounded during a clash between unidentified persons in Diyarbakır. According to the incident report prepared by another soldier the following morning, six bodies were discovered in the crime scene. Only one of the deceased could be identified - as a certain M.Ş. - , while the remaining were referred to as unidentified “PKK terrorists”. As a result of suffering permanent injuries, M.A. brought compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Interior (“the Ministry”) and was awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages on 4 November 1998. On 30 April 1999 the applicant sought an order before the Adana Assize Court for her husband, V. Ü., to be declared presumed dead since he had been missing for more than five years. On 29 June 2000, the Adana Assize Court granted that request, holding the presumption to be effective from 14   April 1994. According to a hand written declaration of 7 February 2000 signed by three soldiers, one of the unidentified “terrorists” in the incident of 29   March 1995 had been the applicant’s late husband. On 20 November 2000, the Ministry brought a case against the applicant before the Diyarbakır Assize Court to recover the sums they paid to M.A pursuant to the judgment of 4 November 1998. The Diyarbakır Assize Court delivered a judgment against the applicant on 6 May 2008 and ordered the applicant to pay the sums in question with interest to the Ministry. It appears that the applicant was notified neither of the lodging of the compensation proceedings against her nor of the first-instance court’s judgment of 6 May 2008, which was considered to be notified to her by way of a newspaper announcement on account of the inability of the authorities to locate her address. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that she only became aware of the judgment of 6 May 2008 when the payment order was served on her, by which time she had lost the right to appeal it. She further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 about being held financially accountable for the event taking place on 29 March 1995, as a surviving heir to her late husband whose participation in the self ‑ same event, let alone as a terrorist, is questionable in view of the incident report of 30   March 1995. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, was she given a realistic opportunity to participate in the proceedings lodged against her by the Ministry? In light of the relevant case-law (see Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey, nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, §§   81-87, 4 March 2017) did the national authorities take necessary measures to inform the applicant of the proceedings lodged against her?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of her being held responsible for an act allegedly committed by her husband, regard being had to the court order of 29 June 2000 presuming him dead from 14 April 1994, as well as the incident report of 30 March 1995, noting that only one out of the five terrorist could have been identified? In particular, how did the Diyarbakır Assize Court determine the factual and legal basis of the applicant’s liability?