CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Communicated on 12 December 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45801/19 Nuray TUNÇ and Mustafa TUNÇ against Turkey lodged on 2 September 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged disappearance of the applicants’ relative, Mr Yusuf Bilge Tunç, on 6 August 2019. The applicants’ relative was dismissed from his post in the Ministry of Defence for his alleged involvement in the terrorist organisation known as FETÖ/PDY (“Gülenist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). On 21 August 2019 the applicants filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court and according to the information in the file, they have not yet received any reply regarding their priority and interim measure requests. Relying on Articles   2,   3,   5 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the lack of an effective investigation into Mr Tunç’s disappearance.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can the individual application to the Constitutional Court be considered as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention?   2.     Was the right to life of the applicants’ relative, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? In particular, was he abducted, as alleged, by agents of the State?   3.     In accordance with the procedural and positive obligations under Article   2 of the Convention, have the authorities carried out an effective investigation and taken the necessary measures to find the applicants’ relative in order to safeguard his life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII and Osmanoğlu v.   Turkey , no.   48804/99, §§ 77-84, 24 January 2008)?   In this connection,   3.1.   What steps are being taken by the investigating authorities, in particular by the relevant prosecutors, in order to find the applicants’ relative, who was allegedly abducted in Ankara?     3.2.   Have the records of surveillance cameras on route to the alleged place of disappearance been secured and analysed with a view to establish the incident?   4.     Has there been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the disappearance of the applicants’ relative? ( Çiçek v.   Turkey , no.   25704/94 , §164, 27 February 2001).   The Government are requested to submit a copy of the investigation file.