CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 29 janvier 2003

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s18D96D33 { width:15.69pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBF401EEE { width:32.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     053   29.1.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING ON THE MERITS IN THE CASE OF TAHSIN ACAR v. TURKEY   Wednesday 29 January 2003 at 9.00 a.m.   The applicant   The application (no. 26307/95) was brought by a Turkish national, Tahsin Acar, born in 1970 and living in Skarpnäck (Sweden).   Summary of the facts   The case concerns the disappearance of the applicant’s brother, Mehmet Salim, a farmer living in Ambar, a village in the Bismil district of south-east Turkey. His brother was abducted in August 1994 by two unidentified persons - allegedly plain-clothes police officers. The applicant complained of the unlawfulness and excessive length of his brother’s detention, of ill-treatment and acts of torture to which his brother was allegedly subjected in detention, and of the failure to provide his brother with the necessary medical care in detention. The applicant further complained that his brother was deprived of the services of a lawyer and of any contact with his family.   In its judgment T.A. v. Turkey of 9 April 2002 a Chamber of the Court decided, by six votes to one, to strike out the case on the basis of a unilateral declaration from the Turkish Government. The Turkish Government offered to pay ex gratia 70,000 pounds sterling for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs. The Government also made a declaration stating that it regretted the actions which had led to the application, in particular the disappearance of the applicant’s brother and the anguish caused to his family:   “It is accepted that unrecorded deprivations of liberty and insufficient investigations into allegations of disappearance, constitute violations of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures with a view to ensuring that all deprivations of liberty are fully and accurately recorded by the authorities and that effective investigations into alleged disappearances are carried out in accordance with their obligations under the Convention. The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will be made in this context. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place...”   The applicant asked the Court to reject the Government’s initiative, arguing that the terms of the declaration were unsatisfactory. He argued that, among other things, it contained no admission that there had been any violation of the Convention concerning his application or that Mehmet Salim had been abducted by State agents and that he must be presumed to have died, that it contained no undertaking to investigate the circumstances of the case and that the compensation would be paid ex gratia. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the scope and extent of the various undertakings referred to therein and the amount of compensation proposed, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.   Complaints   The applicant relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and ill-treatment), 5   (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18   (limitation on use of restrictions of rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29 October 1994 and declared admissible on 30 June 1997. It was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998.   In its judgment of 9 April 2002 a Chamber of the Court decided, by six   votes to one, to strike out the case under Article 37 of the Convention. The applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber [1] (Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 73 of the Rules of Court) on 8 July 2002. The panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 4 September 2002.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Nicolas Bratza (British), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Lucius Caflisch [2] (Swiss), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), John Hedigan (Irish), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Egils Levits (Latvian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge , Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), substitute judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Erdoğan İşcan , Agent , Münci Özmen , Co-Agent , Hasan Mutaf , Burçe Arı , Advisers ;   Applicant:   Keir Starmer , Peter Lownds , Counsel, Kerim Yıldız , Anke Stock , Advisers .   ***   After the hearing, which is limited to the application of Article 37 of the Convention, the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex 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 in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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] .     Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein.