CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 1 juin 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s293861A4 { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:6.29pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s33EDB364 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:normal; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   274 1.6.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ALTUN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Altun v. Turkey (application no. 24561/94).   The Court held unanimously that: there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; there had been no violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention; it was unnecessary to determine whether there has been a breach of Article 6 (right to a fair trial); there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life); there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination); there had been no violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights); there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property).     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 22,000   euros   (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR   14,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   15,000 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Abdullah Altun, is a Turkish national who was born in 1933 and lives in Diyarbakır. Until the end of 1993, he lived in the village of Akdoruk, attached to the Kulp District in the province of Diyarbakır. The applicant left and never returned to the village after the alleged incident.   The facts of the case were disputed by the two parties. In view of the testimonies of witnesses heard by the European Commission of Human Rights during its fact-finding mission and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that, on 13 November 1993, early in the morning a large number of soldiers arrived in the village of Akdoruk. The soldiers had a list of names in their hands and started to set fire to some of the houses. The applicant was not in the village at the time of the incident, having gone to the fields to work. From where he was standing, the applicant saw the smoke and flames rising from the village. The applicant’s house, belongings and livestock were destroyed during the incident.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 30 June 1994 and declared admissible by the Commission on 11   September 1995. Delegates of the Commission took oral evidence at a hearing in Ankara between 28 June to 2 July 1999. The case was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged that State security forces destroyed his family home and possessions. He also maintained that his property was destroyed as the result of an official policy concerning the treatment of people of Kurdish origin. He relied on Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, and 18 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court noted that the applicant’s home was burned down in front of members of his family, depriving them of shelter and support and obliging them to leave their home and friends. Considering that the destruction of the applicant’s home and possessions in the above circumstances must have caused him suffering of sufficient severity for the acts of the security forces to be categorised as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article   3. Article 5 The Court observed that the applicant was never arrested or detained, or otherwise deprived of his liberty. The applicant’s insecure personal circumstances arising from the loss of his home did not fall within the notion of security of person as envisaged by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. There had, therefore, been no violation of Article 5 § 1.   Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The Court recalled that the security forces deliberately destroyed the applicant’s house and property, obliging his family to leave their village. There was no doubt that these acts, in addition to giving rise to a violation of Article 3, constituted a grave and unjustified interference with the applicant’s rights to respect for his private and family life and home, and to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article   8 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Article 6 The Court noted that the applicant did not bring an action before the civil courts. It was therefore impossible to determine whether the national courts would have been able to adjudicate on the applicant’s claims had he initiated proceedings. In the Court’s view, however, the applicant’s complaints mainly pertained to the lack of an effective investigation into the deliberate destruction of his family home and possessions by the security forces. It decided, therefore, to examine the complaint from the standpoint of Article 13, which imposed a more general obligation on States to provide an effective remedy in respect of alleged violations of the Convention.   The Court therefore found it unnecessary to determine whether there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 13 The Court recalled that, because the applicant had an arguable claim that his home and possessions had been purposely destroyed by agents of the State, Article   13 required, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and including effective access for the complainant to the investigation procedure.   The Court observed that, following the burning of his property, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Kulp public prosecutor, clearly indicating that his house had been burned down by security forces. The public prosecutor’s investigation, however, was limited to taking statements from the three complainants. It did not appear that any attempt was made to carry out an on-site inspection at the scene of the incident, to establish the true version of the facts through questioning other villagers who might have witnessed the events or to interview the members of security forces who were allegedly involved in the incident. The Court considered that these elements disclosed considerable defects in the reliability and thoroughness of this part of the investigation.   Concerning the second part of the domestic investigation, the Court considered that the authorities who were responsible for the investigation lacked the requisite independence and impartiality. The Kulp District Governor appointed the Kulp District Gendarme Commander, who was the hierarchical superior of the gendarmes who were allegedly involved in the incident, as investigating officer. It was also clear from the witness testimonies that the Kulp District Gendarme Commander further delegated the Kulp Gendarme Station Commander to conduct the investigation. In view of the fact that the Kulp Gendarmerie was allegedly accused of being involved in the burning of the applicant’s house, the Court found it unacceptable that the same gendarme station was delegated to conduct an investigation into the allegations.   The Court, therefore, concluded that the authorities failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations and that access to any other available remedy, including a claim for compensation, has thus also been denied him. There had therefore been a breach of Article 13.   Articles 14 and 18 Having examined the applicant’s allegations in the light of the evidence submitted to it, the Court found the applicant’s complaints raised under Articles 14 and 18 to be unsubstantiated. There had therefore been no violation of Article 14 or 18.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.