CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 juin 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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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. 98 June 2007 Karakaya (Yalçin) v. Turkey (dec.) - 29586/03 Decision 5.6.2007 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Ban on bringing fresh divorce proceedings within three years of the dismissal of an initial petition no longer applicable owing to the expiry of the relevant period: inadmissible   The applicant was abducted and married one of her kidnappers, whose proposal of marriage she had previously declined. She filed a complaint against her husband, alleging that she had been forced to marry him. The husband denied the allegation and declared that the applicant had run away with him because her family was against their marriage. He contended that she had entered into the marriage of her own free will. The two accomplices in the abduction confirmed that they had taken her away by force but maintained that she had finally consented to elope and get married. The mayor who married the couple said that the applicant had consented to the marriage without showing any signs of being under pressure. The three men were charged with abduction. Because of the marriage, however, the Assize Court suspended the proceedings in respect of the husband. It also terminated the proceedings against the two accomplices. The applicant filed a petition for divorce with the District Court, for incompatibility. She alleged that she had been forced into the marriage, that she had had no sexual intercourse with her husband and that she did not live with him. The District Court granted the applicant time to apply for the annulment of her marriage for absence of consent. She did so but the District Court dismissed her claim in the light of the evidence, witnesses having testified that she had not opposed the marriage but had consented to it. The Court of Cassation upheld that decision and pointed out that it was too late to apply for the marriage to be annulled. The District Court rejected the petition for divorce. The applicant appealed, claiming that she had filed for divorce for incompatibility because it was too late for her to apply for the annulment of the marriage. The Court of Cassation upheld the District Court's decision. A new petition for divorce was filed with the Family Court, which dismissed it on the grounds that the three-year period required by law had not elapsed since the initial decision was adopted in the divorce proceedings. The Court of Cassation upheld that decision. Inadmissible under Article   8 – More than three years had elapsed since the initial rejection of the applicant's petition for divorce and the applicant had not lived with her husband during that period. She now had access to a remedy that would allow her to terminate the impugned marriage. Having no reason to doubt the effectiveness of that remedy, the Court considered that an exception to the general principle that the exhaustion requirement should be taken into account at the time of lodging of the application was justified: non-exhaustion of domestic remedies . Inadmissible under Article   6 – The applicant challenged the merits of the decision reached by the civil courts regarding the validity of her marriage, but it was not for the Court to verify the facts that had led a court to adopt a decision. As to the impossibility for the applicant to bring criminal proceedings against her alleged abductor, the Court pointed out that the Convention did not guarantee any right to prosecute third parties   as such: manifestly ill-founded .   © 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