BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF
SOYLU v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 43854/98)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
February 2007
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Soylu v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr B.M. Zupančič,
President,
Mr J. Hedigan,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr C.
Bîrsan,
Mrs A. Gyulumyan,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mr David
Thór Björgvinsson, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 25 January 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 43854/98) against the Republic
of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the
Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Mehmet
Soylu (“the applicant”), on 22 July 1998.
- The
applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mrs G.
Altay and Mr S. Okçuoğlu, lawyers practising in Istanbul.
The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not
designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the
Court.
- The
applicant alleged that State security forces had destroyed his home
and possessions and had forced him to leave his place of residence
with no possibility to return and that he had been denied an
effective remedy in domestic law in violation of Articles 3, 8, 13
and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The
application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when
Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2
of Protocol No. 11).
- The
application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52
§ 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber
that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention)
was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.
- On
1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections
(Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed
Third Section (Rule 52 § 1).
- By
a decision of 4 October 2005, the Court declared the application
partly admissible.
- The
applicants and the Government each filed further written observations
(Rule 59 § 1). The parties replied in writing to each other's
observations.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Istanbul.
He was living in Nurettin village at the time of the
alleged events giving rise to this application. The facts of
the case are in dispute between the parties and may be summarised as
follows.
A. The applicant's version of the facts
- Until
April 1994 the applicant lived in Nurettin, a village of Malazgirt
district in Mardin province, at that time a state-of-emergency region
of Turkey. In 1994, terrorist activity was a major concern in this
area. Since the 1980s a violent conflict had been going on in the
region between the security forces and sections of the Kurdish
population in favour of Kurdish autonomy, in particular members of
the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan). The inhabitants of the
applicant's village were under pressure by State security forces to
agree to become village guards.
- On
27 November 1993 soldiers, accompanied by persons wearing masks,
raided Nurettin village. They assembled the inhabitants in the
village square and threatened them with the burning of their houses
if they did not agree to serve the State as village guards. They beat
up fifteen young men. The soldiers then chose twenty houses and set
them on fire after throwing a white powder on them. The houses of the
applicant's brother and cousin completely burned down.
- Following
this event, the villagers lived in fear for their security. Some of
them left the village, and the rest, including the applicant,
preferred to stay. The security forces visited the village two or
three times a week in order to force the inhabitants to agree to
become village guards.
- In
April 1994 the heads of approximately thirty families agreed under
pressure to become village guards. However, these newly recruited
village guards, protected by the State, also burned down eight or
nine houses per day. The applicant's house was also burned down,
which forced the applicant and his family to leave the village and
settle in Malazgirt district. In the meantime, the village guards
cultivated the applicant's lands, used the remainder of the materials
left from his house and chopped and sold his poplar trees. Since the
applicant could not overcome the economic difficulties to sustain his
living he moved to Istanbul to find a job.
- On
17 April 1998, the applicant lodged a petition with the Malazgirt
District Governor's office and asked for permission to return to his
village. He explained that he was unable to sustain the living of his
family in the city and that he wanted to cultivate his lands in the
village. The District Governor transmitted the applicant's request to
the District gendarmerie Command and also advised him to apply to the
Konakkuran Gendarmerie Station. The applicant went to see the
commander of the aforementioned station and told him that he had been
advised to address him by the District Commander. The latter refused
the applicant's request to re-settle in the village and ordered a
gendarme to remove the applicant from the premises.
B. The Government's version of the facts
- The
applicant left Nurettin village of his own free will and not under
any pressure by the State security forces or village guards.
- On
19 June 1997 the applicant petitioned the Malazgirt Chief Public
Prosecutor's office complaining that the village guards from Nurettin
village had been using his property without his consent. The
applicant alleged that he had moved out of his village on account of
terrorism in 1994. Subsequent to his departure the village guards had
demolished his house and had removed its wooden parts and the stones.
They had also cut down three thousand poplar trees in his field. The
applicant therefore asked the Prosecutor to initiate criminal
proceedings against the village guards and to ensure that the damage
resulting from the alleged events be compensated.
- On
9 December 1997 the Malazgirt Public Prosecutor took statements from
A.K., who transported the applicant's household property in his
vehicle. He stated that in 1994 he transported the applicant's
belongings from Nurettin village to Malazgirt district and that the
applicant's house was intact.
- On
10 May 1998 the applicant filed another petition with the Malazgirt
Chief Public Prosecutor's office complaining that Z.P., who was one
of the village guards in Nurettin village, had been illegally
cultivating his father's land.
- On
20 August 1998 the Chief Public Prosecutor issued a decision of
non-jurisdiction and referred the case-file to the Malazgirt District
Administrative Council in accordance with the Law on Prosecution of
Civil Servants. An investigation was carried out by an inspector,
appointed by the Administrative Council, into the applicant's
allegations. In this regard, six village guards, including Z.P., were
questioned by the inspector.
- On
30 June 1999, the Malazgirt Administrative Council dismissed a
request for leave to initiate criminal proceedings against the six
village guards from Nurettin.
- By
a decision of 8 November 1999 the Van Regional Administrative Court
set aside the Administrative Council's decision and authorised the
institution of criminal proceedings against the village guards for
alleged destruction of the applicant's property, which offence was
prescribed in Article 516 of the Criminal Code.
- On
1 March 2000 the Malatya Assize Court heard evidence from the accused
village guards. The latter denied the charges and claimed that the
applicant had slandered them. They alleged that the applicant was a
member of the mountain squad of the PKK and that therefore he was
hostile to them because they were village guards. They also noted
that the applicant did not own three thousand trees and six hundred
dönüm
land in the village. The trees belonged to the applicant's brother
who had cut and sold them and then moved to Istanbul.
- On
24 March 2000 two gendarme officers took statements from three
persons, namely R.G., C.Ç and İ.Ö., from Nurettin
village. The villagers stated that they had seen the applicant when
he moved from Nurettin to Malazgirt and that the village guards had
not forced him to move out of the village. They also submitted that
the applicant's house had not been burned down by the village guards
but had been demolished as a result of bad weather conditions and
lack of care. They also noted that the applicant possessed four or
five hectares of land which could not contain thirty thousand poplar
trees.
- On
the same day, the gendarme officers carried out an on-site inspection
on the premises of the applicant's house in Nurettin village. They
drew up a report in which they observed that there was no evidence
that the house had been burned down. It appeared that the house had
been demolished as a result of natural forces and lack of care. It
was also noted that the applicant owned land measuring 10,200 square
metres which could not contain the number of trees allegedly owned by
the applicant. They further observed that the applicant had already
cut six of his trees before moving to Malazgirt. The gendarme
officers also drew up a sketch-map of the village.
- On
16 May 2001 the Malazgirt Assize Court decided to defer the criminal
proceedings against the village guards for five years in accordance
with Article 1 § 4 of Law No. 4616 on Conditional Release,
Deferral of Criminal Proceedings and Sentences. In the absence of any
appeal, this judgment became final. However, this judgment did not
grant amnesty to the accused because the criminal proceedings will be
reopened if they commit a new offence within five years' time.
- On
9 November 2005 gendarme officers took statements from the applicant
and three inhabitants of Nurettin village in relation to the
allegations made by the applicant in his application lodged with the
European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicant stated that in 1994 he had moved out of Nurettin village
due to the intimidation by the village guards and that, fifteen days
or a month after his departure, his house had been burned down by
some of the villagers whose identity he did not know nor why they did
so. In response to a question whether the State authorities forced
him to agree to become a village guard, the applicant stated that no
one had exerted pressure on him or his family. The applicant further
stated that the allegation that the houses of those who did not agree
to become village guards were burned down was untrue. When asked
about the number of trees he owned, the applicant claimed that he
owned - together with his brother and cousin - three thousand poplar
trees, and not thirty thousand. The applicant also stated that he
possessed land measuring 600 dönüm together with his
brother and cousin and that he had not cultivated this land since
1994. In reply to a question whether he and his family had been
affected by the terrorism in the region, the applicant stated that
his son F.S. had been an active member of the PKK, that he had served
a twelve years' prison sentence following his arrest and conviction
and that therefore the PKK had not intimidated his family. Given that
his wife's father had worked at the same time as a village guard, the
State security forces had not intimidated his family either. The
applicant finally noted that he had lived in Istanbul between 1994
and 2002 and that, since the latter date, he had been living in
Taşlıçeşme hamlet, cultivating his lands.
- The
applicant's fellow villagers, Z.T., N.B. and H.Ç. stated that
the authorities had not forced the villagers to agree to become
village guards but, on the contrary, the villagers themselves had
wished to become village guards since they would receive salaries
from the State. However, some of the villagers, including the
applicant and his family, had left the village on account of economic
difficulties. In their opinion, the applicant had left the village
because his son had joined the PKK and his brother had also moved out
of the village earlier. The allegation that the applicant's house had
been burned down by the village guards was untrue since the
applicant's father-in-law was one of the village guards and he would
not set his daughter's house on fire. The applicant's house had been
demolished as a result of bad weather conditions and lack of care.
The applicant could not own thirty thousand poplar trees given that
the total number of trees in the village did not equal this number.
The applicant possessed 60-70 dönüm of land together
with his brothers. In 2002 he had settled in Taşlıçeşme
hamlet and since then he had been cultivating his lands. Nobody had
forced the applicant to leave the village. In the opinion of these
witnesses, the applicant and a few other villagers had made such
allegations in the hope that they would obtain some money.
- Finally
the Government pointed out that on 14 July 2004 the Law on
Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight
against Terrorism was passed by the Grand National Assembly and
entered into force on 27 July 2004 (“Compensation Law”).
That Law provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the
Convention grievances of persons who were denied access to their
possessions in their villages.
- In
that connection, Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions were
set up in seventy-six provinces. Persons who had suffered damage as a
result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat
terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation
commission claiming compensation.
- The
number of persons applying to these commissions had already reached
approximately 204,000. Many villagers had already been awarded
compensation for the damage they had sustained.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- A
full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Yöyler
v. Turkey (no. 26973/95, §§ 37-49, 24 July 2003),
Matyar v. Turkey (no. 23423/94, §§ 93-106, 21
February 2002) and Doğan and Others v. Turkey (nos.
8803 8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, §§ 31-35,
ECHR 2004-...).
THE LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
- In
their supplementary observations dated 9 January 2006, the Government
raised a preliminary objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies in the light of the 'Law on the Compensation of Losses
Resulting from Terrorist Acts and the Measures Taken against
Terrorism' adopted on 14 July 2004 (“Compensation Law”).
This Law provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the
Convention grievances of the applicant who had suffered damages
during the authorities' struggle against terrorism. The Government
therefore asked the Court to reject this application for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and to require the applicant to
avail himself of the new remedy introduced in domestic law.
- The
applicant disputed the Government's objection and argued that he
could not be required to exhaust a new remedy after the admissibility
decision of the Court.
- The Court recalls that in its admissibility decision
of 4 October 2005 it had already dismissed the Government's objection
on non exhaustion of domestic remedies given the lack of an
effective remedy in respect of the applicant's Convention grievances.
It notes that this objection was raised after the application was
declared admissible. While the Court required a substantial number of
applicants to avail themselves of the Compensation Law subsequent to
its decision in the case of Aydın İçyer v. Turkey
(no. 18888/02, 12 January 2006), it points out that none of
those cases had been declared admissible following dismissal of the
Government's objection on non-exhaustion. It is true that the
question of admissibility can be revisited at any stage of the
proceedings in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 in
fine of the Convention (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no.
56679/00, § 42, ECHR 2004 III). However, given the
time elapsed since the introduction of this application, respect for
human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols requires
the Court to give a final ruling in the circumstances of the present
case. The Government's objection cannot, therefore, be taken into
account at this stage of the proceedings.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 8 OF THE CONVENTION AND
OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant alleged that his forced eviction from Nurettin village and
destruction of his house and possessions by the State security forces
as well as his inability to return to his village had given rise to
breaches of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1, which reads in so far as relevant as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 8
“1. Everyone has the right to respect
for his private and family life [and] his home...
2. There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in
the interests of national security, public safety or the economic
well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime,
for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
- The
applicant submitted that his forcible eviction from his family home
and deliberate destruction of his property by the State security
forces constituted a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of
his possessions and his right to respect for his family life. He
contended that the circumstances surrounding the destruction of his
property and his eviction from his village also amounted to inhuman
and degrading treatment. Furthermore, the applicant disputed the
veracity of his statements dated 9 November 2005, the content of
which he learned from his lawyers, and claimed that he had never told
the gendarme officers that he had not been intimidated or that the
houses had not been burned by the security forces. He also had not
told the gendarme officers that he had owned 3,000 trees. He had
owned, together with his brother, 30,000 poplar trees, as he had
already claimed in his application form. Finally, the applicant
pointed out that the statements taken from Z.T., N.B. and H.Ç.
should be treated with caution given that these witnesses were
village guards and thus could not be impartial and that the first two
witnesses had been tried on charges of murder.
- The
Government denied the factual basis of the applicant's complaints and
submitted that they were unsubstantiated. Relying on the findings of
the investigating authorities and the testimonies given by a number
of witnesses, the Government maintained that the applicant had left
his village of his own will and that the security forces had not
forced him to leave. Nor had the security forces burned the
applicant's house or any other houses in Nurettin village.
- The
Court is confronted with a dispute over the exact cause of the events
giving rise to the present application. Accordingly, it must
primarily have regard to the general situation prevailing in the
region at the time of the alleged events. In this connection it
observes that at the relevant time violent confrontations had taken
place between the security forces and members of the PKK in the
state-of-emergency region of Turkey. This two fold violence
resulting from the acts of the two parties to the conflict forced
many people to flee their homes. Moreover, the national authorities
had evicted the inhabitants from a number of settlements to ensure
the safety of the population in the region (Doğan and Others
v. Turkey, nos. 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, §
142, ECHR 2004 ...(extracts)). Yet the Court has also found in
numerous similar cases that security forces deliberately destroyed
the homes and property of certain applicants, depriving them of their
livelihood and forcing them to leave their villages in the
state-of-emergency region of Turkey (see, among many others, Akdivar
and Others v. Turkey (judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports
of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV; Selçuk and
Asker v. Turkey, judgment of 24 April 1998, Reports 1998 II;
Menteş and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 28 November
1997, Reports 1997 VIII; Bilgin v. Turkey, no.
23819/94, 16 November 2000, and Dulaş v. Turkey, no.
25801/94, 30 January 2001).
- This
being so, it should be pointed out that both the European Commission
of Human Rights and the Court have previously embarked on fact
finding missions in similar cases in Turkey where the State security
forces were allegedly the perpetrators of the unlawful destruction of
property (see, among many others, the above cited judgments of
Akdivar and Others and Yöyler; and İpek v.
Turkey, no. 25760/94, ECHR 2004 ...). In those cases, the
main reason which prompted the Convention institutions to have
recourse to such an exercise was their inability to establish the
facts in the absence of an effective domestic investigation.
- It
is a matter of regret for the Court that it is unable to attempt to
establish the facts of the present case by embarking on a fact
finding exercise of its own by summoning witnesses. However, it
considers that such an exercise would not yield sufficient evidence
capable of establishing the true circumstances of the case, given
that the passage of a substantial period of time, almost eleven years
in the instant case, makes it more difficult to find witnesses to
give testimony and takes a toll on the capacity of a witness to
recall events in detail and with accuracy (see İpek,
cited above, § 116). Accordingly, the Court must reach its
decision on the basis of the available evidence submitted by the
parties (see Pardo v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993,
Series A no. 261-B, p. 31, § 28, cited in Çaçan
v. Turkey, no. 33646/96, § 61, 26 October 2004).
- As
noted earlier and having regard to its previous findings in a number
of cases concerning the evacuation and destruction of villages in
south-east Turkey at the relevant time, the applicant's allegations
that he had been forcibly evicted from his village and that his house
had been burned by State security forces cannot be discarded as being
prima facie untenable (see among other authorities, the
judgments of Akdivar and Others, Selçuk and Asker,
Menteş and Others, Bilgin, Dulaş,
Yöyler and İpek, all cited above). However,
for the Court, the required evidentiary standard of proof for the
purposes of the Convention is that of “beyond reasonable
doubt”, and such proof may follow from the coexistence of
sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences, or of similar
unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United
Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p.
65, § 161).
- In
view of the above considerations, the Court observes that, subsequent
to the receipt of the applicant's criminal complaint, the local
authorities carried out an investigation into his allegations. In
this context, statements were taken from a number of persons. A.K.,
who carried out the removal of the applicant's household property
from Nurettin to Malazgirt, stated that the applicant's house was
intact on the day of the removal (see paragraph 17 above).
Furthermore, in their oral evidence to the Malazgirt Assize Court,
six village guards, who were allegedly involved in the events in
question, denied the applicant's allegations. The applicant's fellow
villagers R.G., C.Ç. and İ.Ö.
also claimed that the applicant's allegations were untrue and that
nobody had forced the applicant to leave the village (see paragraph
28 above). Nor had anybody set the applicant's house on fire (Ibid.)
Moreover, the on-site investigation carried out on the ruins of the
applicant's house showed that there was no trace indicating that the
house had been exposed to fire, but that the house seemed to have
been demolished as a result of natural forces and lack of care (see
paragraph 24 above).
- This
being so, the Court notes that the applicant waited until 19 June
1997 - more than three years - to file a complaint with the public
prosecutor's office about the alleged events. He has offered no
explanation for his remaining totally inactive after he had left the
village. He has not explained the reasons for his failure to
intervene in the proceedings which were commenced by the Malazgirt
Chief Public Prosecutor's office or his failure to pursue his case
subsequent to lodging a complaint with the prosecuting authorities.
- Furthermore,
the applicant did not submit any eye-witness statement in relation to
the burning down of his house and possessions by the village guards.
Nor did he give any particulars as to the identity of the persons
involved in the alleged events. Moreover, the applicant has also
failed to provide any evidence, such as written statements from other
villagers, which would rebut the testimonies of the Government's
witnesses and the findings of the national authorities. The Court
notes in this connection that the witness testimonies provided by the
Government were consistent and their accounts are backed up by the
on-site investigation report.
- In
view of the unexplained delay on the part of the applicant to lodge
his complaint with the authorities and his complete failure to rebut
the testimonies of the witnesses, the Court does not find it
established to the required standard of proof that the applicant's
house was burned down or that he was forcibly evicted from his
village by the State security forces.
- As
regards the applicant's alleged prevention from returning to his
village, the Court observes that the applicant did not provide any
information or evidence to substantiate his allegation concerning the
authorities' denial of access to his village. In particular, he did
not explain when and by whom he was prevented from having access to
Nurettin or the use of his property. The Court considers, therefore,
that the applicant has also failed to corroborate his allegation that
he was forced to leave and denied access to his village by State
security forces.
- Against
this background, the Court concludes that there has been no violation
of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that he had been denied an effective remedy with
which to challenge the destruction of his house and his forced
eviction as well as his being prevented from returning to his village
by the security forces. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention,
which reads:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The
applicant contended that he had had no effective remedy in respect of
his Convention grievances as demonstrated by the failure of the
authorities to carry out an adequate investigation into his
complaints.
- The
Government contended that there had been no shortcomings in the
investigation and that the authorities had conducted an effective
inquiry into the applicant's allegations.
- The
Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the
availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance
of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might
happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of
Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to
deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under
the Convention and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting
States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they
conform to their Convention obligations under this provision. The
scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the
nature of the applicant's complaint under the Convention.
Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective”
in practice as well as in law, in particular its exercise must not be
unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of
the respondent State (see Dulaş and Yöyler,
both cited above, §§ 65 and 87 respectively).
- The
Court recalls that on the basis of the evidence collected in the
present case, it has not found it proved to the required standard of
proof that the applicant was forcibly evicted from his village
following the destruction of his house or that he was denied access
to his village by the State security forces or village guards as
alleged (see paragraphs 46 and 47 above). That said, the Court
reiterates that, notwithstanding the terms of Article 13 read
literally, the existence of an actual breach of another provision is
not a prerequisite for the application of the Article (Boyle and
Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A
no. 131, § 52). However, having regard to its above findings on
the applicant's substantive complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court cannot
conclude that the applicant has laid the basis of a prima facie
case of misconduct on the part of the security forces. It refers in
this connection to the applicant's failure to rebut the testimonies
of the villagers or the conclusions reached in the investigation
conducted by the domestic authorities into his complaints (see in
this respect Matyar and Çaçan, both cited
above, §§ 154 and 80 respectively).
- In
the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the above
mentioned situation cannot be regarded as a breach of the applicant's
right to an effective remedy.
- Accordingly,
there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLES 3, 8 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1
OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant maintained that, because of his Kurdish origin, he had been
subjected to discrimination in breach of Article 14 of the
Convention, in conjunction with Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Article 14 provides as
follows:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set
forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on
any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a
national minority, property, birth or other status.”
- The
applicant argued that the destruction of his house and possessions
was the result of an official policy, which constituted
discrimination due to his Kurdish origin.
- The
Government rejected the applicant's allegations.
- The
Court has examined the applicant's allegation in the light of the
evidence submitted to it, but considers it unsubstantiated. There has
therefore been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Dismisses the Government's preliminary
objection;
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No.
1;
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 13 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 3, 8 and
13 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 February 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President
