CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 mars 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 40 March 2002 İbar v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 71928/01 Decision 12.3.2002 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Refusal to grant visa to Turkish national wishing to enter the United Kingdom in order to start a court action against the British authorities: inadmissible The applicant, a Turkish national, was married to a British national. His wife left Turkey where they lived and started divorce proceedings in the United Kingdom. In August 1995, after the divorce proceedings had ended, he went to England to visit his children, who were staying with his ex-wife. He entered her house in her absence and allegedly left tubes of chemical corrosives behind. In October 1996 he went to England again to see his children and was arrested at the airport. He was transferred to a police station where he was questioned about his wife’s allegation that he had got into her house with intent of inflicting grievous bodily harm by leaving tubes of chemical corrosives behind. He was subsequently charged and remanded in custody but was eventually acquitted and released. He then left for Turkey. At a later stage, he applied for a visa in order to go to the United Kingdom to start proceedings for compensation against the British authorities in respect of his detention. His application was rejected on the ground that the initial enquiries as to the feasibility of an action to sue the authorities could be made from Turkey. It was also stated that in the light of the previous charges brought against him in the United Kingdom, his exclusion from the country was conducive to the public good. Inadmissible under Article 6: The applicant did not invoke any of his complaints based on the Convention during his trial in the United Kingdom; he failed to bring court proceedings in respect of these complaints whilst he was there. As regards his presence at an oral hearing in the United Kingdom if compensation proceedings took place, the applicant could have renewed his application for a visa to enter the United Kingdom to attend it. He failed to substantiate convincingly his claim that it was impossible for him to take proceedings against the British authorities from Turkey. The refusal to grant a visa to the applicant could not be considered to amount to denial of access to court: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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