CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 avril 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 } .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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; 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. April 1998 Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey - 23184/94 and 23185/94 Judgment 24.4.1998 Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Alleged burning of houses by security forces in south-east Turkey: 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.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS Court, in line with constant case-law, accepts facts as found by Commission – established that security forces responsible for burning of applicants’ property. II.   GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.   Non-validity of applications No cause to doubt applications to Commission were valid and genuine. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Existence of effective and accessible domestic remedies for complaints such as applicants’ not demonstrated with sufficient certainty – although second applicant presented petition of complaint to District Governor, no investigation opened until communication of applications by Commission to Government – special circumstances existed which dispensed applicants from obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. Conclusion : objection dismissed (eight votes to one). III.     MERITS A.   Article 3 of the Convention In view of manner in which applicants’ homes destroyed and their personal circumstances, they must have been caused suffering of sufficient severity for acts of security forces to be categorised as inhuman treatment. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). B.   Articles 2 and 5 § 1 of the Convention Claims not pursued. Conclusion : not necessary to examine (unanimously). C.   Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 No doubt that burning of property constituted grave and unjustified interference with rights under these provisions. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). D.   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention Given nature of complaint, and in line with case-law, not necessary to determine whether there has been violation of Article 6 § 1. Respondent State had not carried out thorough and effective investigation into applicants’ allegations, as required by Article 13. Conclusion : not necessary to examine complaint under Article 6 § 1 (unanimously); violation of Article 13 (eight votes to one). E.   Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention Acceptance of Commission’s findings that allegations unsubstantiated. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part. Non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part. B.   Costs and expenses Claim allowed in full. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to applicants (eight votes to one).   © 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