CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 avril 2014

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 No. 173 April 2014 Ergezen v. Turkey - 73359/10 Judgment 8.4.2014 [Section II] Article 34 Locus standi Legitimate interest of heirs to pursue application in name of applicant who died after his application was lodged: admissible Facts – By an application lodged with the European Court in September 2010, the applicants, Mr   Mehmet and Mr   Ziya Ergezen, complained of the length of their pre-trial detention, of flaws in the appeal procedure, the lack of a compensatory remedy and of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them. Mr   Ziya Ergezen died in October 2010. His wife and children then informed the Court that they intended to pursue the application before the Court in their capacity as heirs. For their part, the Government submitted that the heirs did not have standing to pursue the application as the criminal proceedings against Mr   Ziya Ergezen were closely linked to his person. Law – Article 34: Cases in which the applicant had died during the proceedings had to be distinguished from those in which the application had been lodged by his or her heirs following the victim’s death. Where a person who claimed to be a victim of a violation of his or her rights under the Convention applied to the Court him or herself, they made a personal and informed choice to exercise their personal right of individual application under Article   34 of the Convention and thus to trigger the Court’s jurisdiction. This was not the case where the heirs of a person who could claim to be a victim under the Convention lodged an application with the Court following that person’s death. It could be deduced from the Court’s case-law that even where an applicant died after lodging his or her application, the Court could be called upon to determine whether, as alleged in the application, the Contracting State had violated his or her rights, where the heirs of the deceased had expressed the wish to pursue the application or where the Court ruled that it was justified to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 §   1 in fine of the Convention. In such a case the decisive point was not whether the rights in question were or were not transferable to the heirs wishing to pursue the procedure, but whether the heirs could in principle claim a legitimate interest in requesting the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant’s wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application with the Court. Accordingly, in accordance with its case-law, the Court held that Ziya Ergezen’s widow and children had a legitimate interest in pursuing the application on his behalf. It therefore recognised their standing to continue the proceedings in the applicant’s stead. Conclusion : preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously). The Court also held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   3 and, unanimously, a violation of Article 5 §§   4 and 5 and Article 6 §   1. Article 41: EUR 4,000 to the applicant Mehmet Ergezen and EUR   4,300 jointly to Ziya Ergezen’s heirs in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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