CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 mai 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sEDF00F56 { margin-left:18pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-family:serif; list-style-position:inside } .s90404E59 { width:6.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   371   23.5.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DENIZCI AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS (formerly Tufansoy and Others v. Cyprus )   In a judgment [1] (available only in English) delivered at Strasbourg on 23 May 2001 in the case of Denizci and Others v. Cyprus (application nos. 25316-21/94 and 27207/95) the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been:       no violation of Article   2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights;     a violation of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) of the Convention;     a violation of Article   5 § 1 (right to liberty and security);     no violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in respect of Ilker Denizci and that it was unnecessary to consider separately this complaint in respect of Hasan Merthoca;     a violation of Article   2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).   The Court also held, unanimously, that: it was unnecessary to consider separately the applicants’ complaint under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) or to examine the case under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of expulsion of nationals); that no separate issue arose under Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5; and, that the respondent State had not failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 § 1 (not to hinder right to make individual application; now replaced by Article 34).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded each applicant 20,000 Cyprus pounds (CYP) for non-pecuniary damage and to all the applicants the aggregate amount of CYP 25,000 for legal costs and expenses, less the 6,045 French Francs received in legal aid from the Council of Europe.     1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Ilker Denizci, Aziz Merthoca, Hüseyin Mavideniz, Yilmaz Mavideniz, Dogan Davulcular, Hasan Merthoca, Erbay Kaptanoglu, Taşer Ali Kişmir and Rebiye Tufansoy, Cypriot nationals, live in Cyprus.   In 1994 the applicants (and, in the case of the ninth applicant, her son) were living in the southern part of Cyprus.   Between 4 and 22 April 1994, the applicants (and, in the case of the ninth applicant, her son) were arrested by Cypriot police officers and ill-treated.   They were obliged to sign statements saying that they were leaving for the northern part of Cyprus of their own free will.   They were then expelled to northern Cyprus, and told that they would be killed if they returned to the south.   However, certain applicants (and, in the case of the ninth applicant, her son) returned later to the south, where they were obliged by the police to give statements to the effect that they had been ill-treated by the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the “TRNC”) authorities, who had forced them to sign application forms to the European Commission of Human Rights.   On 2 June 1994, upon his return to the south, the ninth applicant’s son, İlker Tufansoy, was shot and killed by unknown persons.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12 September 1994.   The applications were joined and declared admissible by the Commission on 20 January 1998.   On 23 January 1998 the Commission decided to take oral evidence in respect of the applicants’ allegations.   Evidence was heard by the Commission in Nicosia from 31 August to 4 September 1998.   On 1 November 1999 the applications were transmitted to the Court.     Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), President , Lucius Caflisch [2] (Swiss), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Andreas Loizou ( Cypriot), ad hoc judge ,   and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicants alleged violations of Articles 3, 5 and 8 and Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4.           Decision of the Court   Government’s preliminary objections   The Court found that there were no adequate and effective remedies for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention which the applicants were required to exhaust.   Concerning the complaint related to the killing of the ninth applicant’s son, İlker Tufansoy, the Court noted that an investigation was opened ex officio .   However, no incriminating evidence was found against any person.   Consequently, the ninth applicant was not required to pursue any domestic remedy in that respect.   The Court did not uphold the Government’s objection on grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies.   As to the application of Aziz Merthoca   Given the time that had elapsed since the hearing of evidence in September 1998, during which no further information from Aziz Merthoca had been forthcoming, despite the Court’s attempt to obtain such information, the Court found that the applicant did not intend to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 a) of the Convention.   Article 2   The Court found that it was unable to determine who killed İlker Tufansoy.   It was not established that the perpetrators were members of the Central Intelligence Service or agents acting on their behalf.    However, this did not exclude the responsibility of the Cypriot Government.     The Court had examined in addition whether the circumstances disclosed any failure on the part of the Government to fulfil any positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to protect the right to life by the preventive and protective framework in place at the time of İlker Tufansoy’s death and by the investigative procedures implemented after his death.   In the material before the Court, there was nothing to suggest that, even supposing that İlker Tufansoy feared that his life was at real and immediate risk, he had ever reported these fears to the Cypriot police.   Nor was there anything to indicate that the Cypriot authorities ought to have known that İlker Tufansoy was at risk of attack from criminal acts of a third party and failed to take steps to protect him.   For these reasons, the Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 2 on this account.   In the light of the above and having examined the investigation file submitted by the domestic authorities, the Court saw no element which would allow it to conclude that the investigation into the killing of İlker Tufansoy was inadequate.   There had accordingly been no violation of Article 2 on this account.   Article 3   The Court found that at the time of the applicants’ detention (or, in the case of the ninth applicant, her son’s detention) the police officers had intentionally subjected them to ill-treatment of varying degrees of severity.   However, it was not established that the police officers’ aim was to extract a confession.   The Court also pointed out that it could not determine the precise manner in which the beatings had been inflicted.   Moreover, it could not disregard the uncertainty concerning the severity of the injuries sustained by some of the applicants.   Finally, the Court observed that, despite the serious injuries sustained by some of the applicants, no evidence was adduced to show that the ill-treatment in question had any long-term consequences for them.   In the light of the above, the Court considered that the ill-treatment to which the applicants (or, in the case of the ninth applicant, her son) were subjected could not be qualified as torture.   Even so, that treatment was serious enough to be considered inhuman in respect of each applicant.   The Court therefore concluded that there had been a breach of Article 3.   Article 5 § 1   The Court found that the applicants (or, in the case of the ninth applicant, her son) were taken and kept in custody by Cypriot police officers and then expelled to northern Cyprus.   The Court noted that, as no lawful basis for the applicants’ arrest and detention had been advanced by Cyprus, there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   Article 8   In the light of its findings that the applicants (or, in the case of the ninth applicant, her son) were subjected to inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3, the Court found it unnecessary to examine this complaint separately.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The Court recalled that, on the basis of the written and oral evidence before it, it had not been established that the events as alleged by İlker Denizci had occurred and that, as a result of his forcible expulsion, Hasan Mehmet Merthoca was deprived of the use and enjoyment of his property, his households goods and money.   In respect of İlker Denizci’s complaint, the Court considered, therefore, that the factual basis was insufficient for reaching the conclusion that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     As to Hasan Mehmet Merthoca’s complaint, the Court found that the deprivation complained of was the consequence of the applicant’s expulsion and therefore did not require a separate examination from the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (see below).   Article 2 of Protocol No. 4   The Court found that the Cypriot authorities closely monitored the applicants’ movements (or, in the case of the ninth applicant, her son’s movements) between the northern part and the south, and within the south.   They were not allowed to move freely in the south and had to report to the police every time they wanted to go to the north to visit their families or friends or upon their entry in the south.   The Court considered that these restrictions on the applicants’ movements fell under the provision of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and constituted an interference with their freedom of movement. The Court also found that the restrictions were neither provided for by law nor necessary and that there had, therefore, been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.         Article 3 of Protocol No. 4   The Court observed that the applicants, apart from submitting that the Republic of Cyprus could only exercise authority and control in the southern part, had not claimed that they (or, in the case of the ninth applicant, her son) were expelled to the territory of another State.   The Court further noted that the Republic of Cyprus was the sole legitimate Government of Cyprus - itself, bound to respect international standards in the field of the protection of human and minority rights.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that its conclusions in relation to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 made it unnecessary for it to determine whether Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 applied and, if so, whether it was complied with.   Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5   In the light of its findings above, the Court considered that no separate issue arose under Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5.   Former Article 25   The Court did not find that it had been sufficiently established that the applicants were subjected to improper pressure by the Cypriot authorities to withdraw their allegations or that their right of individual petition was otherwise hindered by the authorities.   Therefore, Cyprus had not failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 § 1.   ***   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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] . This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.