CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 février 1998

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. February 1998 Kaya v. Turkey - 22729/93 Judgment 19.2.1998 Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Effective investigation Alleged unlawful killing by security forces and failure of authorities to carry out effective investigation into killing: no violation; violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (applicant’s lack of standing and validity of application) Government failed to raise this objection at the admissibility stage of the proceedings before the Commission – estoppel. Conclusion : objection dismissed (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Alleged unlawful killing of applicant’s brother Reiteration of case-law on Commission’s role in establishment of facts. In instant case, deeply conflicting accounts of circumstances in which victim was killed – Commission’s fact-finding seriously hindered on account of failure of applicant and alleged key eyewitness to testify before delegates – while sharing Commission’s concerns about certain features of Government’s case, Court considers nevertheless there are no exceptional circumstances which lead it to depart from Commission’s finding of no violation – insufficient factual and evidentiary basis to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that deceased intentionally killed in circumstances alleged by applicant. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). B.   Alleged inadequacy of investigation Reiteration of case-law on procedural obligation inherent in Article 2 requiring Contracting States to conduct some form of effective investigation when individuals killed by agents of State. In instant case, circumstances surrounding killing disputed – could not be considered a clear-cut case of lawful killing which could be disposed of by means of minimum formalities – investigation (forensic examination, autopsy, further enquiries) seriously deficient – investigating authorities proceeded throughout on assumption that deceased was a terrorist killed in an armed clash with security forces – not prepared to test that assumption – neither prevalence of armed clashes in region nor high incidence of fatalities can displace obligation under Article 2 to ensure effective investigation into deaths arising out of clashes with security forces – authorities failed to comply with obligation in this case. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). C.   Alleged lack of protection in domestic law for the right to life Conclusion : not necessary to consider complaint (unanimously). III.   ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention Applicant did not at any stage pursue a compensation claim before a civil or administrative court – not possible therefore for Court to determine whether domestic court would have adjudicated on claim notwithstanding applicant’s contention that legal proceedings would offer no prospect of success in view of inadequacy of official investigation into killing – complaint under Article 6 § 1 in reality linked to Article 13 complaint that seriously deficient investigation resulted in denial of effective remedy. Conclusion : not necessary to consider complaint (unanimously). B.   Article 13 of the Convention Reiteration of Court’s case-law on nature of an effective remedy in cases of alleged serious violations of Convention rights. In instant case, authorities confronted with an allegation of unlawful killing by security forces – relatives of deceased had arguable grounds for making allegation in view of doubts about exact circumstances of killing – authorities obliged in circumstances to conduct, for benefit of relatives, thorough and effective investigation – no such investigation conducted having regard to Article 2 conclusion – accordingly applicant and next-of-kin also denied on that account an effective remedy and thereby access to other remedies, including compensation proceedings. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). IV.   ARTICLES 2, 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 14 Complaints not substantiated. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: claim in respect of applicant disallowed – sum awarded to deceased’s widow and children. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a specified sum to deceased’s widow and children only (eight votes to one). B.   Costs and expenses: applicant’s claim allowed in part. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a specified sum (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