CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 juillet 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7A5A2521 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     522   11.7.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF G.H.H. AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   In a judgment notified in writing [1] 1 on 11 July 2000 in the case of G.H.H. and Others v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that it was unnecessary to pursue the examination of the applicants’ complaints under Articles 2 (right to life), 3   (prohibition of torture) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that there had been no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   1.   Principal facts   The applicants, G.H.H. (born in 1966), his wife, M.A. (born in 1959) and their son, A.S. (born in 1981), are Iranian nationals now living in the United States of America.   The first and second applicants claimed that they were political dissidents in Iran and had been involved in anti-Government activities. The first applicant further claimed that he was arrested and detained by the Iranian authorities in 1987 and that after 1993 he incurred the suspicion of the same authorities on account of his publications. Having been detained again in 1996, the first applicant feared for his life, fled Iran and entered Turkey. He was later joined by his family. The first applicant’s requests for refugee status were rejected by the UNHCR on 13 June 1997, 21 November 1997 and 8 July 1998. On 18 August 1998 the Turkish police served a deportation order on the applicants. Following a fresh examination in March 1999 of the first applicant’s request for refugee status, the UNHCR decided to grant him refugee status. The UNHCR had regard to new information supplied by the first applicant which showed that his activities in the Association of Iranian Authors had brought him into contact with other intellectuals who had been murdered in Iran in 1998, apparently on account of their work on behalf of the same Association. The UNHCR was of the opinion that if the applicant were to be returned to Iran there was a reasonable likelihood that he would face persecution. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs subsequently directed that the applicants be entitled to remain in Turkey until they were resettled in a third country.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26 August 1998 and was declared partly admissible on 31 August 1999. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc Judge ,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants claimed that their rights under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be violated if they were to be deported to Iran. They further claimed that they had no effective remedy to challenge their deportation, in breach of Article 13.   Decision of the Court   Articles 2, 3 and 8   The Court noted that the applicants had left Turkey in October 1999 and had been resettled in the United States of America. For that reason it considered that no further examination of the above complaints was required.   Article 13   The Court noted that it was only when the applicants supplied details of the recent killings of writers in Iran at the end of 1998 and highlighted the relevance of those events to the first applicant’s situation that the UNHCR and ultimately the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were led to take a different view of the risks attendant on their deportation. However, prior to the submission of those, the applicants could not claim to have an arguable complaint that they were at risk. The Court observed in this respect that the UNHCR had on three occasions already rejected the applicants’ claim for refugee status.   The Court further noted that the applicants were no longer at risk of summary deportation after 26   March 1999 when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs directed that they could remain in Turkey pending their resettlement in a third country. For this reason, no issue under Article 13 of the Convention arose between that date and the date of the applicants’ departure from Turkey.   The Court concluded that the applicants could not be considered to have an arguable claim at the material time that their rights under Articles 2, 3 and 8 would be breached if they were to be removed to Iran. Accordingly, it held that there had been no breach of Article 13.   *** 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 Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.