CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 juin 2001

.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 31 June 2001 Akman v. Turkey - 37453/97 Judgment 26.6.2001 [Section I] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Fatal shooting by security forces and effectiveness of investigation: struck out Article 37 Article 37-1-c Continued examination not justified Unilateral declaration by Government following failure of friendly settlement negotiations: struck out The applicant's son was shot dead by security forces who came to search his house. The applicant maintains that his son was unarmed, whereas the Government claim that the security forces responded to firing and that there was a loaded Kalashnikov beside the applicant's son. Following unsuccessful friendly settlement negotiations, the Government submitted a unilateral declaration in the following terms: “1. The Government regrets the occurrence of individual cases of death resulting from the use of excessive force as in the circumstances of Murat Akman’s death notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions. 2. It is accepted that the use of excessive or disproportionate force resulting in death constitutes a violation of Article 2 of the Convention and the Government undertakes to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the right to life - including the obligation to carry out effective investigations - is respected in the future. It is noted in this connection that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of deaths in circumstances similar to those of the instant application as well as more effective investigations. 3. I declare that the Government of the Republic of Turkey offers to pay ex gratia to the applicant the amount of 85.000 GBP. This sum, which also covers legal expenses connected with the case, shall be paid in pounds sterling to a bank account named by the applicant. The sum shall be payable, free of any taxes that may be applicable, within three months from the date of striking out decision of the Court pursuant to Article 37 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final settlement of the case. 4. The Government considers that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will continue to be made in this context. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place.” The applicant requested the Court to reject the Government’s initiative and to proceed with its decision to take evidence with a view to establishing the facts. He stressed that the declaration omitted any reference to the unlawful nature of the killing of his son and failed to highlight that his son was unarmed. The Court, having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the declaration as well as the scope and extent of the various undertakings referred to therein, together with the amount of compensation proposed, considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. It was satisfied that respect for human rights did not require it to continue the examination of the application, which it consequently struck out of the list.   © 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