CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 septembre 1998

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s768E2FDC { width:21pt; display:inline-block } .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. October 1998 Yaşa v. Turkey - 22495/93 Judgment 2.9.1998 Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Alleged murder and attempted murder by security forces: no violation   Effective investigation Lack of adequate and effective investigation into incidents: violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE Complaints under Articles 3 and 6 not pursued before Court – no reason for Court to consider them of its own motion. II.   GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.   Whether applicant was a victim Government estopped from denying that applicant was related to person killed in one of alleged attacks – in light of principles established in its case-law and particular facts of case, applicant could legitimately claim to be a victim of his uncle’s murder. Conclusion : objection dismissed (eight votes to one). B.   Failure to exhaust domestic remedies First limb (civil action for damages): those responsible for attacks unidentified – not valid. Second limb (action in administrative law on basis of State’s strict liability): identification of State agents responsible was not a prerequisite to bringing an action of that nature – not valid. Third limb (criminal proceedings): closely linked to complaints on merits. Conclusion : first two limbs of objection dismissed, third limb joined to merits (eight votes to one). III.   ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Attacks on applicant and his uncle Case file, including new evidence furnished by applicant, did not enable Court to depart from Commission’s conclusions – impossible to conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that applicant had been attacked and his uncle killed by security forces. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). B.   Inadequacy of investigations Obligation under Article 2 to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into circumstances of alleged incidents – not confined to cases where implication of State agents had been established – nor was issue of whether a formal complaint about killing had been lodged with competent investigatory authorities decisive: mere fact that authorities had been informed of murder had given rise ipso facto to obligation to carry out effective investigation – same applied to attack on applicant which, because eight shots had been fired at him, had amounted to attempted murder. Two criminal investigations were pending – no tangible result or real progress more than five years after events – difficulty in conducting investigations in area marked by terrorism could not relieve authorities of their obligations under Article 2 – failure, in spite of circumstances, to have regard to fact that State agents might have been responsible. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). IV.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Recapitulation of Court’s case-law on “effective remedies” – circumstances enabled complaint under Article 2 to be considered arguable – fact that responsibility of State agents had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt made no difference in that regard – as there had been no adequate and effective investigation for purposes of Article 2, respondent State could not be considered to have complied with Article 13, whose requirements in that respect were stricter still. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). V.   ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE Material on file was not sufficient to enable Court to determine whether authorities had adopted a practice of violating Article 2 or Article 13. VI.   ARTICLES 10, 14 AND 18 OF THE CONVENTION Complaints arose out of same facts as those considered under Articles 2 and 13. Conclusion : not necessary to decide that issue (unanimously). VII.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage Pecuniary damage: claim dismissed. Non-pecuniary damage: sum awarded. B.   Costs and expenses: Claim allowed in part. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sums (eight votes to one).   © 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