CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 décembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 103 December 2007 Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey - 40998/98 Judgment 13.12.2007 [Section III] Article 34 Victim State-owned company operating with legal and financial independence: victim status upheld   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 Control of the use of property Arbitrary seizure for over a year of a ship and its cargo on suspicion of arms smuggling: violation   Facts : In October 1991 the Turkish authorities seized a Cypriot-owned vessel chartered by the applicant as they suspected that the weapons it was transporting were intended for smuggling. Criminal proceedings were brought against several of the ship’s crew. In December 1991, following an investigation into the matter, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the cargo transported by the applicant belonged to Iran and that its seizure could not be justified by the alleged “state of war” between Turkey and Cyprus. The Turkish courts eventually acquitted the crew members and in December 1992 released the vessel. In subsequent civil proceedings, the applicant was unable to obtain any compensation for the damage incurred to it through the seizure of the vessel. Law : Article 34 – The Government firstly objected that the applicant had no locus standi since it was a state-owned corporation, and that it could therefore not be distinct from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Court found, however, that since the applicant company was governed essentially by company law and was legally and financially independent of the State, there was nothing to suggest that the application had effectively been brought by the State of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The seizure of the vessel amounted to control of use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The parties agreed that the interference had a legal basis, whilst disagreeing on the scope and the meaning of the applicable law. Despite the authorities having been made aware only two months following the seizure that the cargo was not being smuggled and did not pose a threat to Turkish national security, the situation continued for another year. The Court considered that the vessel should have been released at the latest in March 1992, when the first-instance court gave its decision to that effect. The detention of the vessel following that date was arbitrary since there was no basis for suspecting an offence of arms smuggling or any general power to seize the ship due to a state of war between Turkey and Cyprus. Moreover, given the courts’ refusal of the applicant’s compensation claim, the interference with the applicant’s property rights had been disproportionate. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes