CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 avril 2021

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 May 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24967/15 Berna BAŞPINAROĞLU against Turkey lodged on 8 May 2015 communicated on 15 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case concerns the alleged failure of the domestic authorities to provide an adequate reparation to the applicant, who had been subjected to domestic violence. Relying on Articles 3, 6, 8, and 14 of the Convention, the applicant complained that she had been beaten by her husband, who had subsequently been found guilty of causing bodily harm before the İzmir Criminal Court. The pronouncement of the sentence was however suspended pursuant to Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the meantime, the applicant also filed for divorce and requested compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that she had suffered due to the domestic violence. Although she referred to the criminal case lodged against her husband in the divorce proceedings, the domestic courts refused to award the applicant any compensation, without taking into consideration the decision of the criminal court (İzmir Family Court’s decision of 27   June 2012, no. 2012/399E, 2012/553K). The applicant’s subsequent application to the Constitutional Court was examined solely under Article 6 of the Convention and was dismissed for being manifestly ill-founded, without expressing any view on the applicant’s allegations concerning domestic violence (decision of 30 June 2014, no. 2013/2169).   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the facts of the case disclose a violation of Articles 3, 6, 8 and   14 of the Convention (see Opuz v. Turkey , no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009)?   2.     In this connection, did the domestic judicial authorities provide an adequate reparation to the applicant for the domestic violence she had been subjected to by her former husband? In particular:   (a)   With regard to the manner in which the authorities have responded to the applicant’s allegations concerning domestic violence, could the overall approach of the judicial authorities be considered to be compatible with their positive obligations under the Convention as in the end she was deprived of any redress regarding her domestic violence complaint?   (b)   When refusing to award any compensation to the applicant, could the domestic courts be considered as having kept an open mind about the domestic violence that the applicant had been subjected to, which was her essential argument during the divorce proceedings?