CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 juillet 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA3022B31 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:17.83pt; font-family:serif } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     404   24.7.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF YÖYLER v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Yöyler v. Turkey (application no. 26973/95). The Court held unanimously that there had been   a violation of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights;   a violation of Article   8 (right to respect for home);   a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property);   a violation of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy);   no violation of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property); and   no violation of Article   18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights).   The Court held that it was unnecessary to determine whether there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 25,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 14,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   14,700 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Celalettin Yöyler, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Istanbul. He used to live in Dirimpınar, which is attached to the Malazgirt district in the province of Muş.   Between 1966 and 1994 he was the imam (religious leader) of the village. As a result of his involvement with a number of political organisations, of which he became the local leader, he was imprisoned on a number of occasions. The applicant left his village and did not return prior to the events in question because he had been threatened with death. The application concerned his allegations that State security forces had destroyed his house and possessions and those of six other villagers related to him.   The parties presented diverging accounts of events. According to Mr Yöyler, in 1994 three young women from the village, who were all related to his extended family, had decided to join the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). A gendarme unit commander had threatened to burn the village down if the women were not brought to him, whereupon Mr Yöyler’s family and the families of the young women fled. Gendarmes raided his village and burned his house down on 18 September 1994. According to the Government, Mr Yöyler had left the village of his own free will with his wife and children. The gendarmes had not been in Dirimpınar on the night in question and could not therefore be held responsible for burning his house down, which might have occurred as a result of a private dispute.   On 23 September 1994 Mr Yöyler lodged a criminal complaint with the Karşıyaka public prosecutor in İzmir. On 8 November 1994 the public prosecutor sent a letter to the Gendarme Command in Malazgirt requesting a report on the matters raised in the applicant’s allegations. By letter of 2 March 1995, the Gendarme Central Command in Malazgirt replied to the prosecutor’s letter by submitting the records of statements they had taken. The prosecutor took further statements in May 1995, and the gendarme commander M.A. in June and November 1995. Since November 1995 there has been no development in the investigation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application [Note2] was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 April 1995 and declared admissible on 13 January 1997. It was transmitted to the Court on 1   November 1998. A delegation of three judges of the Court took evidence from witnesses in Ankara from 2 to 5 April 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows: [Note3]   Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), President , Lucius Caflisch [2] (Swiss), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   Mr Yöyler alleged that on 18 September 1994 State security forces had destroyed his house and possessions. He relied on Articles 3, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of the Convention   The Court found it to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the security forces had deliberately burned Mr Yöyler’s house and part of his household property, thus forcing his family to leave the village. It noted that his home had been burned down in front of members of his family, depriving them of shelter and support and obliging them to leave their home and family friends.   Even assuming that the motive behind those acts had been to punish the applicant and his relatives for their alleged involvement with the PKK, that did not provide a justification for such ill-treatment. The Court considered that the destruction of the applicant’s home and possessions and the anguish and distress suffered by members of his family must have caused him suffering of sufficient severity for the acts of the security forces to be categorised as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3.   Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   There was no doubt that the acts complained of also constituted grave and unjustified interference with the applicant’s rights to respect for his private and family life and home, and to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   Article 13 of the Convention   The Court noted that there had been striking flaws and omissions in the investigation. Among other things, there was credible testimony from Mr   Yöyler’s fellow villagers that they had been asked to sign blank sheets of paper and statements that had been written in advance and had not been read out to them; the public prosecutors had made no attempt to interview members of the security forces despite the fact that Mr Yöyler had clearly named gendarmes as the perpetrators; the prosecuting authorities had visited the scene of the incident more than two years and three months after receiving the applicant’s complaint; control of the investigation had been transferred to an administrative council, a body which the Court had previously held could not be regarded as independent; and there was evidence that the involvement of the gendarmes in the investigation had resulted in the cover-up of certain facts.   The Court concluded that the authorities had failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations and that access to any other available remedy, including a claim for compensation, has thus also been denied him.   It considered that the allegations under Article 14, in conjunction with Articles 3, 6, 8, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and Article 18 had not been substantiated.   ***   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. [2] .     Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. [Note1]   Press release for individual judgments . To be saved in PowerDocs as follows: (1) Document Name: case name [+   date] + language (e.g. Sliven 31012003E or C.T. v. Finland 31012003E ), (2)   Document type: PR, (3) Group: PRESS, (4)   Subject: JCH or JGC . When you have completed your document, run the “CleanUpMyDocumentToBePublished” macro to remove all comments or remove them manually. [Note2]   For applications after 1 November 1998. [Note3]   For Mr Caflisch, add the following footnote: “Elected as the judge in respect of Liechtenstein.”