CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 janvier 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 38 January 2002 Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.) - 62566/00, 62567/00, 62568/00 et al. Decision 10.1.2002 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six-month period Six month period starting to run when applicants became or should have become aware of circumstances which made domestic remedies ineffective: inadmissible In October 1993 clashes took place between security forces and PKK militants in the district of Lice in south-east Turkey. The incidents resulted in the deaths of 16 people, injuries to 35 others and the destruction of a great number of properties, including the applicants’ homes or shops. Following these incidents, the applicants all applied to the Magistrates’ Court for an assessment of the damage sustained. Criminal proceedings are still pending before the Public Prosecutor’s office at the State Security Court. Inadmissible under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol N°   1: If no effective remedies are available, the six-month time-limit starts running in principle from the date of the act complained of. However, special considerations can apply in exceptional cases where applicants who availed themselves of a domestic remedy only became aware, or should have become aware, at a later stage of circumstances that made that remedy ineffective. In such instances, the six-month period may be calculated from that time. In the present case, the applicants were aware of the destruction of their properties as of 23   October 1993. Following their request, the Magistrates’ Court determined the damage in November 1993. The applicants did not avail themselves of any further remedies, which they considered ineffective. On 29 November 1994, their representative introduced before the Convention organs 201 applications concerning the same incident, in which it was also alleged that no effective remedies were available. In view of these elements, assuming that there were no effective remedies, both the applicants and their representative must have been aware of this situation no later than 29 November 1994 and should have introduced their applications within six months from then. The applications having been introduced on 6   October 2000, they were not submitted to the Court within the six months’ time-limit.   © 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