CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 juillet 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s3C17E4C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:72pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s78792F9F { width:7.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sDB76880E { width:35.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA2195DF8 { width:15.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3571619 { width:16.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s74F6B9E6 { width:24.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE60CA728 { width:7.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5A20AFD0 { width:35.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1B15610 { width:15.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7A262DF5 { width:16.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA2744214 { width:24.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 6 July 2020 Published on 27 July 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45942/11 Hatice UÇKUN and Others against Turkey lodged on 28 June 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants, who are of Roma origin, complained that on the night of 5   January 2010, they had been victims of a mob attack that was organised by the residents of the Selendi District, demanding that the Roma be expelled from the district. According to the applicants, the local authorities failed to protect the Roma residents from the attack, in the course of which damage had been caused to their cars, belongings and houses. The applicants further maintained that because of this hostile attack, they had been forced to move to another district. Following the incident, three different sets of proceedings were initiated. In so far as the complaint lodged against the District Mayor and the Deputy Security Director, on 6 January 2011 a non-prosecution decision was delivered by the Public Prosecutor and this decision was upheld by the Alaşehir Assize Court on 7 April 2011. As regards the criminal proceedings initiated against the perpetrators of the mob attack, on 23 December 2015 the Uşak Assize Court found thirty eight of the accused persons guilty as charged and convicted them for incitement to hatred and causing damage to property. The appeal proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation. Finally, twenty out of the seventy-five applicants initiated compensation proceedings before the Manisa Administrative Court alleging that as a result of the negligence of the domestic authorities, they had suffered both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 7 March 2014 the domestic court found it established that there had been a fault that could be attributed to the domestic authorities and stated that the district governor and the deputy security officer had been late in their intervention and had failed to act effectively in dispersing the crowd and prevent the damage that had been caused to the Roma origin citizens’ cars, houses and their belongings. The court therefore decided that the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the twenty applicants be compensated by the domestic authorities. The plaintiffs were accordingly each awarded 10,000 Turkish Liras (TRY) (approximately 3,300 euros (“EUR”)) in respect of compensation. Following appeal, the Manisa Regional Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Manisa Administrative Court. No individual application was filed with the Constitutional Court against the decision of the Manisa Regional Administrative Court. The applicants solely complained about the non-prosecution decision delivered against the Selendi District Mayor and Deputy Security Director and maintained that the authorities had failed to provide protection from the attack, and the investigation had been ineffective. They also alleged that the failure of the domestic authorities to conduct an effective investigation amounted to discrimination due to their Roma origin. In respect of their complaints, the applicants relied on Articles 2, 3, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, bearing in mind that the domestic authorities had refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the Government officials, can the decision delivered by the Manisa Administrative Court on 7 March 2014, be considered as an effective remedy in the circumstances of the present case? 2.     Did the treatment to which the applicants were subjected, reach the threshold of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, have the authorities failed to protect the Roma residents from an attack on their homes by a mob motivated by anti-Roma sentiment, by taking all reasonable steps to expeditiously prevent the attack against the applicants? 3. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment, even when inflicted between private persons (see Beganović v. Croatia , no.   46423/06, § 71, 25 June 2009), was the investigation in the present case adequate for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention? Furthermore, recalling that when investigating violent incidents, State authorities have an additional duty under Article 3 of the Convention to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice may have also played a role in the events, and that a similar obligation might also arise in cases where the treatment constituted an interference with Article 8 of the Convention, could the authorities in the circumstances of the present case, be considered to have conducted an effective investigation (see Burlya and Others v. Ukraine , no.   3289/10, §§   169-170, 6 November 2018; Király and Dömötör v. Hungary , no.   10851/13, § 61, 17 January 2017 and R.B. v. Hungary , no. 64602/12, §   84, 12 April 2016) ? 4. Did the damage caused to the applicants’ houses and belongings constitute a grave and unjustified interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and home, as protected by Article   8 of the Convention? 5. Having in particular regard to the relevant part (paragraphs 53-56) of the fifth report on Turkey by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), adopted on 29 June 2016, have the applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of their ethnic origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and/or 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities take into consideration the racist motive of the attack when conducting the domestic investigation? List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Birth year Nationality Place of residence 1 Hatice UÇKUN 1948 Turkish MANİSA 2 Dilek BAYIR 1992 Turkish MANİSA 3 Hakkı ÇELİK 1980 Turkish MANİSA 4 Cansel ÇELİK 1984 Turkish MANİSA 5 Mustafa ÇELİK 1999 Turkish MANİSA 6 Yağmur ÇELİK 2002 Turkish MANİSA 7 Dilay ÇETİN 1984 Turkish MANİSA 8 Erdal ÇETİN 1976 Turkish MANİSA 9 Gökhan ÇETİN 2000 Turkish MANİSA 10 Naim ÇETİN 2003 Turkish MANİSA 11 Fadime DEMİRCİ 1941 Turkish MANİSA 12 Ali Rıza GÜVEN 1964 Turkish MANİSA 13 Nuran GÜVEN 1974 Turkish MANİSA 14 Oğuz GÜVEN 2002 Turkish MANİSA 15 Yücel GÜVEN 2002 Turkish MANİSA 16 Ali KOCA 2001 Turkish MANİSA 17 Arda KOCA 2009 Turkish MANİSA 18 Asi KOCA 2008 Turkish MANİSA 19 Berivan KOCA 2003 Turkish MANİSA 20 Cemal KOCA 1976 Turkish MANİSA 21 Cemile KOCA 1984 Turkish MANİSA 22 Ercan KOCA 1979 Turkish MANİSA 23 Gaye KOCA 2002 Turkish MANİSA 24 Hakan KOCA 2004 Turkish MANİSA 25 Hüseyin KOCA 1984 Turkish MANİSA 26 Mehmet KOCA 1974 Turkish MANİSA 27 Nevin KOCA 2003 Turkish MANİSA 28 Nevrigül KOCA 1955 Turkish MANİSA 29 Nevrigül KOCA 2001 Turkish MANİSA 30 Nurcan KOCA 1979 Turkish MANİSA 31 Süleyman KOCA 1954 Turkish MANİSA 32 Sultan KOCA 1983 Turkish MANİSA 33 Sümbül KOCA 1987 Turkish MANİSA 34 Tayfur KOCA 2000 Turkish MANİSA 35 Tuncay KOCA 1976 Turkish MANİSA 36 Yaşar KOCA 1974 Turkish MANİSA 37 Abdurrahman Namık ÖZER 2007 Turkish MANİSA 38 Alper ÖZER 2003 Turkish MANİSA 39 Aşkın ÖZER 1983 Turkish MANİSA 40 Bülent ÖZER 1980 Turkish MANİSA 41 Dilek ÖZER 1981 Turkish MANİSA 42 Gamze ÖZER 1997 Turkish MANİSA 43 Gülizar ÖZER 1956 Turkish MANİSA 44 Muhammet ÖZER 2006 Turkish MANİSA 45 Polat ÖZER 2006 Turkish MANİSA 46 Selma ÖZER 1983 Turkish MANİSA 47 Seyfettin ÖZER 1999 Turkish MANİSA 48 Barış SEPETÇİ 1991 Turkish MANİSA 49 Gülhanım SEPETÇİ 1959 Turkish MANİSA 50 Gülhanım SEPETÇİ 2009 Turkish MANİSA 51 Hediye SEPETÇİ 1988 Turkish MANİSA 52 Hüseyin SEPETÇİ 1970 Turkish MANİSA 53 Yaşar SEPETÇİ 1983 Turkish MANİSA 54 Seyfettin SEPETÇİ 1959 Turkish MANİSA 55 Seyfettin SEPETÇİ 2008 Turkish MANİSA 56 Serpil TURHAN 1975 Turkish MANİSA 57 Caner UÇKUN 2006 Turkish ANTALYA 58 Ahmet UÇKUN 1961 Turkish MANİSA 59 Ayşe UÇKUN 1985 Turkish ANTALYA 60 Birgül UÇKUN 1974 Turkish MANİSA 61 Burhan UÇKUN 1977 Turkish MANİSA 62 Erdal UÇKUN 1971 Turkish MANİSA 63 Gizem UÇKUN 2009 Turkish ANTALYA 64 Gökhan UÇKUN 1996 Turkish MANİSA 65 Gonca UÇKUN 1993 Turkish MANİSA 66 Hamza UÇKUN 2004 Turkish ANTALYA 67 Memati UÇKUN 2005 Turkish MANİSA 68 Nurten UÇKUN 1980 Turkish MANİSA 69 Özkan UÇKUN 2002 Turkish MANİSA 70 Pınar UÇKUN 2006 Turkish MANİSA 71 Sedat UÇKUN 2009 Turkish MANİSA 72 Selcan UÇKUN 1991 Turkish MANİSA 73 Sevittin UÇKUN 1960 Turkish MANİSA 74 Sibel UÇKUN 1994 Turkish MANİSA 75 Yılmaz UÇKUN 1975 Turkish ANTALYA