CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 22 avril 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .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 } .s965CBF98 { width:98.1pt; display:inline-block } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s64E4A34A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:1.15pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s6F57788 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E5E7461 { width:153.48pt; display:inline-block } .s7E99EE1A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s9A32A52D { width:153.47pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1DD6A86C { width:86.8pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     213   22.4.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, all of which are final. [1]   (1)     Ateş v. Turkey (application no. 28292/95)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Hüseyin Ateş, is a Turkish national, born in 1939 and living in Hozat, in the province of Tunceli (Turkey).   The applicant alleged that in October 1994 his home and possessions were burned when security forces set fire to his village. He claimed to have applied to various authorities for housing and to have received a reply informing him that he could not be re-housed because the relevant provisions did not apply to residences demolished as a result of terrorist raids.   According to the Government, security forces had taken action against PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) terrorists who had threatened and attacked the village. The applicant had fled and had received financial assistance from the district municipality between 1994 and 1996. Following a complaint by the inhabitants of the applicant’s village, the district governor had decided to discontinue the investigation because the villagers had been unable to identify the perpetrators and the evidence indicated that PKK terrorists had burned the village.   The applicant relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 49,000 euros (EUR) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. The Government have also made the following declaration: “The Government regret the occurrence of individual cases of destruction of home, property and possessions resulting from the acts of agents of the State in south-east Turkey, obliging civilians to leave their villages, and of failure by the authorities to carry out effective investigations into the circumstances surrounding such events, as in the case of the applicant, Hüseyin Ateş, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such acts and to remedy such failures. It is accepted that such acts and failures as claimed in the applicant’s case constitute a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1   of Protocol No. 1 and, given the circumstances of the destruction and the emotional suffering entailed, of Article 3 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the individual rights guaranteed by these Articles – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations – are 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 destruction of property in circumstances similar to those of the instant application and in more effective investigations being carried out. The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 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 judgment is available only in English).   (2)     Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 28308/95)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Zeki Yıldız, is a Turkish national, born in 1956 and living in Germany.   He was detained in Buca Prison in İzmir on suspicion of being a member of the PKK. He signed a petition complaining that he and other prisoners had been attacked by prison warders on 26   April 1994 and also complained to the public prosecutor. He was examined by a doctor, who pronounced him unfit for work for two days. On 29 September 1994 the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the prison administration or warders because the use of force in this instance had been justified in order to maintain peace and order in the prison. The applicant’s objections were dismissed.   The applicant relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 30,500 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. The Government have also made the following declaration:   “The Government regret the occurrence, as in the present case, of individual cases of ill-treatment by the authorities of persons detained notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions. It is accepted that the recourse to ill-treatment of detainees constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the prohibition of such acts and the obligation to carry out effective investigations are respected in the future. The Government refer in this connection to the commitments which they undertook in the Declaration agreed on in Application no.   34382/97 and reiterate their resolve to give effect to those commitments. They note that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of ill-treatment in circumstances similar to those of the instant case as well as more effective investigations.... ...The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 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 judgment is available only in English.)   (3)     Macir v. Turkey (no. 28516/95)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Beyaz Macir, is a Turkish national of Kurdish origin living in Adana, Turkey.   Her husband, Hacı Sait Macir, who was a member of a HADEP (People’s Democracy Party) committee, witnessed the fatal shooting of two other committee members in front of his cafe in Adana on 3 October 1994. The applicant alleges that her husband was continually harassed by police officers after the incident. Approximately three months after giving a statement to the police about the killings he himself was shot in front of the same cafe. He died in hospital on 1 January 1995.   An investigation was commenced into the killings. On 18 January 1995 the public prosecutor decided that the applicant’s husband had been killed by terrorists and that the case should therefore be tried by the State Security Court. The State Security Court prosecutor transferred the case-file back to the public prosecutor, however, on the ground that the evidence did not suggest that the crime had been committed by a terrorist organisation. The public prosecutor requested the police headquarters to keep him informed of developments in the investigation.   The applicant complained, under Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, that her husband had been killed by undercover agents of the State and that no effective investigation had been carried out.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 70,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. The Government have also made the following declaration:   “The Government regret the occurrence of individual cases of death resulting from the failure to protect the lives of individuals and the failure of the authorities to carry out effective investigations into the circumstances surrounding the death of individuals, as in the case of the applicant’s husband, Mr Hacı Sait Macir, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to remedy such failures.   It is accepted that such failures constituted a violation of Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention and, having regard to the anguish caused to the family members, of Article 3. The Government undertake 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 and in more effective investigations being carried out.   The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 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 judgment is available only in English.)   (4)     Güler and Others v. Turkey (no. 46649/99)   Friendly settlement Zahide Güler and her children Faysal, Yücel, Hakan, Yüksel, Leyla, Ceylan and Yeliz are Turkish nationals who live at Varto, a district in the province of Muş subject to a state of emergency at the material time.   On 14 September 1994 Ahmet Güler – Zahide Güler’s husband and the children’s father – was shot and killed by a soldier on Seyithan Hill when taking his animals out to pasture. A criminal investigation was opened by the public prosecutor’s office acting on its own motion. After finding that it had no jurisdiction to examine the case, it transferred the investigation file to the Varto Administrative Council. On 15 December 1998 the Varto District Governor informed the applicants’ lawyer that it had been decided that it was unnecessary to issue criminal proceedings under the Prosecution of Civil Servants Act.   The applicants had also brought an action in damages in the administrative court, which was dismissed on 22 November 1995 on the ground that the authorities were not liable for the death. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 2 March 1998.   The applicants complained under Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention that Ahmet Güler had been murdered by a soldier. They also complained that the resulting criminal proceedings had been discontinued and their action in damages dismissed.   The case was struck out of the list following a friendly settlement, under the terms of which the applicants were to receive 70,000 euros (EUR) for damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. The Turkish Government also made the following declaration:   “The Government regret the occurrence of individual cases of death resulting from the use of excessive force as in the circumstances of Ahmet Güler’s death notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such acts. It is accepted that the use of excessive force constitutes a violation of Article 2 of the Convention and the Government undertake 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 present application as well as more effective investigations. …   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 continue to be made in this context. To this end, necessary cooperation in this process will continue to take place.” (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of 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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (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.