CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 novembre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 80 November 2005 Nuri Kurt v. Turkey - 37038/97 Judgment 29.11.2005 [Section II] Article 13 Effective remedy Adequacy of investigation into alleged burning of homes: violation   Facts: According to the applicant, in 1994 he and his fellow villagers were compelled to leave their homes in Suçıktı after being threatened by State security forces and guards from a neighbouring village who, the following year, set fire to their homes. In 1997 a commission, headed by a gendarme major, launched an investigation but concluded that the homes had been burnt down as a result of a fire which had spread from a neighbouring village and that no proceedings should be brought against the security forces and the village guards. The Diyarbakır Regional Administrative Court upheld that finding. In 2000 a group of people, encouraged by village guards, settled in Suçıktı together with their livestock. The applicant petitioned to have them evicted from his home and requested permission for his family’s return, but received no reply. The Government claimed that the applicant and other villagers had left Suçıktı as they had been threatened by the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). The Government maintained that some houses in Suçıktı had been burnt down as a result of a fire which had spread from a neighbouring village but that the applicant’s house had not been damaged. Furthermore, an investigation revealed that the applicant had leased his land to two villagers. Law – Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: As the applicant had not provided enough evidence to corroborate many of his allegations the Court could not find it established to the required standard of proof that his house had been destroyed by State security forces. Neither had he provided any information or evidence to substantiate his allegation that he had been forced to leave and denied access to his village by State security forces. Conclusion : No violation (unanimously). Article 13 of the Convention : The Court noted serious defects in the investigation. In particular, the appointment of a gendarme to investigate fellow gendarmes, along with other issues which cast serious doubts on the credibility of the investigation, led the Court to conclude that it had not been thorough and effective. Conclusion : Violation (unanimously). Article 14 of the Convention: The applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated. Conclusion : No violation (unanimously). The applicant was awarded EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes