CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 octobre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)88 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Alay and 5 other cases against Turkey   (See details in Appendix)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the unlawfulness of the applicants’ transfer to gendarmerie premises for further interrogation after being placed in pre-trial detention under the state of emergency legislation (violation of Article 5§1 c)), lack of a remedy in this respect (violation of Article 5§4) and lack of a right to compensation (violation of Article 5§5) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Turkey’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing, similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.     Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)88   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Alay and 5 other cases against Turkey   Introductory case summary   These cases concern the unlawfulness of the applicants’ transfer to gendarmerie premises for further interrogation after being placed in pre-trial detention on the basis of Decree-Law No. 430 on additional measures to be taken in the region covered by the state of emergency (violation of Article 5§1 (c)). The cases also concern the lack of a remedy in this respect (violation of Article 5§4). The cases of Balık, Zerey and Gürceğiz and others concern lack of a right to compensation for unlawful detention (violation of Article 5§5).   I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application No. Date of judgment Final on Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Paid on Alay/1854/02 06/03/2007 06/06/2007   2   500 EUR 700 EUR 3   200 EUR 05/09/2007 Balık/ 6663/02 15/02/2007 15/05/2007   4   500 EUR   4   500 EUR 03/08/2007 Zerey/ 33412/02 17/07/2007 17/10/2007   3   000 EUR   3   000 EUR 15/01/2008 Ete/ 29315/02 20/09/2007 20/12/2007   3   500 EUR   3   500 EUR 17/03/2008 Gürceğiz and others/ 30245/02 20/09/2007 20/12/2007   18   000 EUR   18   000 EUR 17/03/2008 Kırkazak/ 20265/02 12/12/2006 12/03/2007   2   500 EUR 315 EUR 2 815 EUR 11/06/2007   b) Individual measures   No individual measures are necessary since the applicants are no longer detained in violation of the requirements of Article 5§1 (c) of the Convention.     II.   General measures   As regards the violations of Article 5§§1 (c) and 4, these cases present similarities to the cases of Dağ and Yaşar against Turkey and Karagöz against Turkey closed by Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)96 and in which the Turkish authorities already adopted the necessary general measures: in November 2002 the state of emergency was lifted in all regions in Turkey. Consequently, Decree-Law No. 430 is no longer in force. As regards the violation of Article 5§5, these cases present similarities to the case of Sakık closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)110: the constitutional and legislative provisions governing police custody have been brought into conformity with the requirements of Article 5.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken will prevent new, similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 October 2008 at the 1035th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies