CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 30 janvier 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4060989B { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     68   30.1.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DULAŞ v. TURKEY   In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 30 January 2001 in the case of Dulaş v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held: unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property); by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); unanimously, that it was not necessary to decide on the applicant’s complaint under Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on Convention rights); and unanimously, that Turkey had failed to comply with their obligations under former Article 25 § 1 (not to hinder right to make individual application; now replaced by Article 34) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded, unanimously, the applicant 12,600 pounds sterling (GBP) for pecuniary damage and GBP 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded, unanimously, GBP 14,900 for legal costs and expenses less the amount awarded for legal aid by the Council of Europe.   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Zubeyde Dulaş, a Turkish national, was born in 1931 and lives in İstanbul, Turkey.   On 8 November 1993 she alleged that gendarmes from Hazro carried out a search in her village of Çitlibahçe and started burning the houses. The soldiers set fire to her house. Her home, and the furniture, household goods and stored provisions, crops and wheat inside, were destroyed. After the departure of the gendarmes, the village was left in ruins and villagers were forced to leave. On 10 October 1995, she was summoned to the public prosecutor and made a statement concerning her application to the European Commission of Human Rights.   According to the Government, the operation in this case concerned an investigation into the kidnapping and killing of teachers and an imam by the PKK. The allegations of the applicant, who had not complained to the authorities, were vague and contradictory and unsubstantiated by the evidence.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 May 1994. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 6 September 1999 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 3 and Article 13, and that there had been no violation of Articles 14 and 18. The Commission further held that Turkey had failed to comply with their obligations under former Article 25. It referred the case to the Court on 30 October 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Tudor Panţîru (Moldovan), Rait Maruste (Estonian), judges, Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that the destruction by gendarmes of her home and possessions violated her right to respect for her private and family life and home as guaranteed by Article 8, as well as her property rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She also complained that this treatment was so serious that it amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 and that she had no effective remedy, as guaranteed by Article 13.   She further complained that the destruction of her home and possessions illustrated the existence of an authorised practice, disclosing restrictions on Convention rights imposed for ulterior purposes, which was contrary to Article 18. Lastly, she complained of an interference with her right of unhindered petition, guaranteed by former Article 25 of the Convention, in that she had been questioned about her application to the European Commission of Human Rights.   Decision of the Court   The Court’s assessment of the facts   The Court noted that the Commission had carried out a hearing of witnesses in this case. It accepted the facts as established by the Commission. The Court found no grounds in the arguments advanced by the Turkish Government for holding that the Commission’s assessment of the evidence was not in accordance with the established principles for assessing evidence under the Convention system. It was accordingly established that security forces were responsible for the destruction of the applicant’s home and possessions and that the loss of her home and possessions caused her to abandon the village where she had lived until then and to settle elsewhere. Article 3   The Court found that the destruction of the applicant’s home and possessions by security forces amounted to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3. It held that, even in the most difficult of circumstances, such as the fight against organised terrorism and crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms treatment contrary to this provision. Noting the circumstances in which the applicant’s home and possessions had been destroyed as well as her personal circumstances, the Court considered that the destruction of the applicant’s home and possessions by security forces must have caused her suffering of sufficient severity to categorise the acts complained of as inhuman.   Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Having established that security forces were responsible for the destruction of the applicant’s home and possessions, the Court found violations of Articles 8 and 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Article 13   The Court noted that while the applicant did not approach any domestic authority with her complaints before introducing her application to the Commission, it appeared that, following communication of this application to the Government, the public prosecutor had summoned the applicant, who maintained her claim that soldiers had burned her home. The public prosecutor did not take any other investigative step, before issuing a decision of non-competence and referring it to the Administrative Council.   Referring to previous cases where it had found that the Administrative Council, as a body made up of civil servants hierarchically dependent on the governor (an executive officer linked to the security forces under investigation), could not be regarded as independent (see e.g. Güleç v. Turkey judgment of 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1731-33, §§ 77-82), the Court concluded that no thorough or effective investigation had been conducted into the applicant’s allegations. She had therefore been denied an effective remedy for her complaints in breach of Article 13.   Article 18   Having regard to its findings above, the Court did not find it necessary to examine this complaint.   Former Article 25   The Court recalled that in previous cases it had held that the questioning of applicants about their application by the authorities may amount to a form of illicit and unacceptable pressure, hindering the exercise of the right of individual petition in breach of former Article 25. The applicant in this case had been questioned about her application to the Commission, in particular whether it was accurate and whether she wished to maintain it. This disclosed undue interference with her right of individual petition. Consequently, the Court held that the Turkish Government had failed to comply with their undertaking under former Article 25.       Article 41   The Court awarded the applicant GBP 12,600 for pecuniary damage and GBP 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. For costs and expenses, it awarded GBP 14,900 less the amount awarded for legal aid by the Council of Europe.     Judge Gölcüklün expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .    Judge elected in respect of San Marino. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.