CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 19 octobre 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }       The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the applications lodged on 21 July 1989 by the Metropolitan Chrysostomos and the Archimandrite Papachrysostomou against Turkey (Applications Nos. 15299/89 and 15300/89);        Whereas in their applications, declared admissible by the Commission on 4 March 1991, the applicants complained of the conditions of their arrest and detention in July 1989, and of the proceedings brought against them;        Whereas Turkey has declared that its recognition of the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights pursuant to Article 46 (art. 46) of the Convention extends only to matters raised in respect of facts, including judgments based on such facts, which have occurred subsequent to the date of deposit of the declaration, that is after 22 January 1990;        Whereas on 26 August 1993 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;        Whereas in its report adopted on 8 July 1993, the Commission expressed, by twelve votes to one, the opinion that there had been no violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention as regards the first applicant, by twelve votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention as regards the second applicant, by nine votes to four that there had been no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention as regards the first applicant, by seven votes to six that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention as regards the second applicant, by eight votes to five that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention as regards the first applicant, by seven votes to six that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention as regards the second applicant, by eight votes to five that the applicants' detention after their arrest and the proceedings against them were not in violation of the Convention and by ten votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention;        Whereas, at the 507th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 3 February 1994, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, as regards the second applicant, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention as regards the first applicant, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention as regards the second applicant, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention as regards the first applicant, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention as regards the first applicant, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention as regards the second applicant, that the applicants' detention after their arrest and the proceedings against them were not in violation of the Convention and that there had been no violation of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the second applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 8 July 1994;        Whereas, at the 517th meeting of the Deputies held on 20 September 1994, the Committee of Ministers decided, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2 (art. 32-2), of the Convention, that the Government of Turkey was to pay to the Archimandrite Papachrysostomou as just satisfaction, within three months, 10 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 75 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 85 000 French francs;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of Turkey to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 3 February 1994 and 20 September 1994, having regard to Turkey's obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), of the Convention to abide by them;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 11 May 1995 the Government of Turkey paid the Archimandrite Papachrysostomou the total sum of 85 000 French francs as just satisfaction,        Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of Turkey, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention in this case;        Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.