CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 juin 2001

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sF741ECC3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s1C40E3A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sFE576133 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     462   26.6.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar     JUDGMENT IN THE CASE AKMAN v. TURKEY     In a judgment [1] (available only in English) today notified in writing in the case of Akman v. Turkey (application number 37453/97), the European Court of Human Rights decided, unanimously, to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in view of the following declaration from the Turkish Government, dated 21 March 2001:   “The Government regrets the occurrence of individual cases of death resulting from the use of excessive force as in the circumstances of Murat Akman’s death notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions. It is accepted that the use of excessive or disproportionate force resulting in death constitutes a violation of Article 2 of the Convention and the Government undertakes to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the right to life – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations – is respected in the future. It is noted in this connection that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of deaths in circumstances similar to those of the instant application as well as more effective investigations. The Government considers 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 continue to be made in this context. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place.”   The Turkish Government are also to pay ex gratia 85,000 pounds sterling to the applicant.     1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Faysal Akman, is a Turkish national.   According to the applicant, on 20 January 1997, on police orders, he opened the door to his home in Savur (Turkey) and five members of the security forces entered and searched his house. At the request of one of the security force members, he called his son, Murat, who appeared, holding his identity card in his hand. He claimed that a member of the security forces took the card, looked at it, threw it on the floor and then started to shoot at Murat using an automatic rifle. The applicant, who at this time was being restrained, was taken to another room. Subsequently, he was allowed to go to the room where the body of his son lay. He saw the body with an automatic rifle and bullet magazines lying on it. There were marks of gunfire on the walls of the room. Money (5,000 German marks) and a ring had been removed from his son’s body.   The applicant submitted that the public prosecutor went to the house together with a doctor. Statements were taken from the applicant, his other son, Salih, and from Murat’s wife Şemse. On an unspecified date the applicant filed a complaint with the Chief Public Prosecutor of Savur. The applicant met with the Prosecutor who told him that the file was being sent to the Diyarbakır State Security Court. The applicant claimed he was not aware of any investigation having been initiated in respect of the incident.   In their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s observations, the Turkish Government disputed the applicant’s account of his son’s killing.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998 and allocated to the First Section of the Court. In a decision of 21 September 1999, the application was declared admissible. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Luigo Ferrari Bravo (Italian [2] ), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant alleged, in particular, that his son was unlawfully killed by the Turkish security forces, in violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention. He also relied on Articles 6 (access to court), 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 on rights), in connection with his son’s death.   Decision of the Court   Observing that the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case, the Court examined the Turkish Government’s declaration of 21 March 2001.   The Court recalled that Article 37 of the Convention provided that it might, at any stage of the proceedings, decide to strike out an application where it was “no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”, provided that   respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its protocols, did not require the Court to continue the examination of application.   Having carefully examined the terms of the declaration and having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the declaration as well as the scope and extent of the various undertakings, together with the amount of compensation proposed, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue to examine the application. Accordingly, the application was struck out of the list, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.   ***   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       [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 the case to the Grand Chamber. [2] Judge elected in respect of San Marino [3] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.