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]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF BEKER v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 27866/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 March
2009
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 Beker v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş, judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 March 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 27866/03) against the Republic
of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by four Turkish nationals, Mrs Fadik Beker,
Mr Özgür Beker, Mr Aytekin Beker and Ms Sibel
Beker (“the applicants”), on 27 May 2003.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr Mesut Gündoğdu and
Mr Ali Cemal Zülfikar, lawyers practising in Elazığ.
The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent.
- The
applicants alleged in particular that their close relative
Mustafa Beker's right to life under Article 2 of the Convention
had been violated by agents of the respondent State, either
intentionally or due to negligence.
- On
22 January 2008 the President of the Second Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicants were born in 1955, 1976, 1979 and 1983,
respectively, and live in Ankara. The first applicant is the mother
and the remaining three applicants are the brothers and sister
of Mr Mustafa Beker, who was born in 1977 and was working as an
expert corporal
in the special teams of the gendarmerie in Tunceli.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear
from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.
- At
around 9.20 a.m. on 8 March 2001 Mustafa Beker allegedly committed
suicide by shooting himself in the head in the dormitory of the
military barracks where he was stationed. A non-commissioned officer
who arrived at the scene immediately checked for a pulse and realised
that Mr Beker was
still alive. At 9.30 a.m. he was taken to the infirmary in an
ambulance.
- The
same day a First Lieutenant (“the military investigator”)
carried out an inspection of the dormitory, drew a sketch of the
place, questioned a number of Mr
Beker's colleagues and recorded their statements.
- A
pistol was found some distance away from the place where Mr Beker
had fallen, but the exact distance is not specified in the sketch.
The pistol had been cocked and had fired two rounds but had failed to
fire a third time. Two spent bullet cases and two bullets – one
of which was misshapen – were also found. It was established
that the pistol belonged to one of Mr
Beker's colleagues, expert sergeant T.Y., who had left it in
his locker just outside the dormitory. According to a document drawn
up by the military investigator, Mr
Beker had obtained the pistol by smashing the padlock on the
locker with a stick.
- Expert
sergeant M.A., when questioned by the military investigator, stated
that Mr Beker had stayed
at the former's house the previous night. Mr Beker
had been drunk and in an agitated state. M.A. had been concerned
about Mr Beker's state
and had taken his pistol away from him and then hidden it in his
house. When he had woken up in the morning, Mr
Beker had already left the house, leaving his pistol behind.
He had found Mr Beker in
a restaurant, drinking. They had then gone to the barracks where Mr
Beker had unsuccessfully asked expert sergeant T.Y. for the
key to T.Y.'s locker. M.A. had then started to walk away but
turned back when he heard a gunshot; whereupon he saw Mr
Beker on the floor, with a pistol next to his feet.
- When
questioned by a military prosecutor, expert sergeant T.Y. confirmed
that he had seen M.A. and Mr
Beker in the corridor and that the latter had asked him for
his key to his locker. He had told Mr
Beker that he did not have the key on him. He had then left to
attend to business elsewhere in the barracks. He had left his pistol
in his locker.
- Expert
sergeant M.K. told the military investigator that, between 9.10 and
9.15 a.m., he had been changing his clothes in front of his locker in
the corridor when Mr Beker
had approached him and asked him where T.Y.'s locker was. M.K. had
then heard noises which he thought were coming from the area near Mr
Beker's locker. Twenty to thirty seconds later he had heard
two gunshots coming from the dormitory. When he had reached the
dormitory he had seen Mr Beker
lying on the floor with his head bleeding.
- Four
expert sergeants questioned by the military investigator and
subsequently by the military prosecutor stated that they had been in
their bunk beds in the dormitory when Mr
Beker entered at around 9.15 a.m. and asked them to get up and
start work. They had told Mr
Beker that it was still too early to get up as their shifts
did not start until 11 a.m. Mr
Beker had then left the dormitory and they had heard noises
coming from the locker area. Mr
Beker had then re-entered the dormitory carrying a pistol.
They had then heard him cock the pistol before they heard two
gunshots within a second of each other. With the exception of one of
the expert sergeants, none of them had seen Mr
Beker shoot himself. None of the expert sergeants had heard Mr
Beker talking or arguing with anyone before the shooting or
seen anyone running away from the scene afterwards.
- A
number of Mr Beker's
colleagues told the military prosecutor that he had been feeling low
for the last couple of months and had been drinking a lot. He had
fallen in love with a girl in January 2001 but his mother opposed
their marriage.
- Expert
sergeant S.U. was the only person in the dormitory who claimed to
have seen Mr Beker shoot
himself. He told the military investigator that he had seen and heard
Mr Beker fire once, using
his right hand and aiming at the right side of his head. When he was
subsequently questioned by the military prosecutor, he stated that he
could not remember exactly how many shots he had heard as he had been
in a state of shock. He added that, although he had been about five
metres away from Mr Beker
at the time, he had not actually seen Mr
Beker shoot himself as he had covered his face with his hands.
- According
to a report prepared by the Tunceli public prosecutor the same day,
the military authorities had requested him to assist them in the
investigation by carrying out a preliminary examination of the body
of Mr Beker, who had
died before his arrival at the Tunceli State Hospital. Mr Beker's
body was formally identified by his colleague, expert sergeant M.A..
- The
prosecutor and a doctor first examined Mr
Beker's clothes and observed that there were no bullet holes
or any other marks on them. They observed a bullet entry hole on the
left temple and a bullet exit hole on the right temple. A lack of
gunpowder residue or burns on the skin next to the entry hole led the
doctor to conclude that the shot had been fired at close but not at
point-blank range. There were no other injuries on Mr
Beker's body.
- During
the examination the prosecutor and the doctor smelt alcohol emanating
from Mr Beker's body.
Expert sergeant M.A. confirmed that Mr Beker
had been drinking that morning. M.A. also informed the prosecutor and
the doctor that Mr Beker
had been right-handed and had always used his right hand when
shooting during their military training.
- The
doctor secured plastic covers to Mr
Beker's hands to preserve them for a subsequent swab test. The
body was then sent to Elazığ Military Hospital, where a
post-mortem examination was carried out the same day.
- In
the course of that examination, the pathologist observed no gunpowder
residue next to the bullet entry hole and concluded that the shooting
had occurred at point-blank range. The bullet entry hole was
approximately two centimetres above the left eyebrow. The exit hole
was next to the right ear. There were burnt and un-burnt gunpowder
particles inside the bullet entry hole.
- A
blood sample was found to contain no alcohol and the cause of death
was established as the destruction of the brain. The pathologist also
took swabs from Mr Beker's
hands for a forensic examination which found gunpowder residue on the
outside of the deceased's right hand (report of 27 April 2001).
- On
10 March 2001 the military investigator concluded his investigation.
In a one-sentence conclusion, the military investigator stated that
Mr Beker had “committed
suicide as a result of a sudden bout of depression”.
- A
lieutenant, who was Mr Beker's
immediate commander and who knew him well, was recorded as stating
that Mr Beker had been a
very good soldier and that he had not had any psychological problems.
- On
13 March 2001 Özgür Beker, who is one of the applicants and
a brother of Mr Beker,
asked the office of the military prosecutor for copies of the
documents from the investigation file because the family had
“suspicions surrounding his death”.
- On
12 April 2001 the lawyer for the applicants wrote to the office of
the Elazığ military prosecutor and repeated the family's
request for information and documents about the investigation into Mr
Beker's “alleged suicide”.
- On
9 January 2002 the lawyer for the applicants wrote to the Ministry of
Defence and again asked for information about the investigation. The
lawyer also stated in his letter that his clients had merely been
informed by the military authorities that Mr
Beker had committed suicide. However, neither he nor the
family had been given any information or documents from the
investigation file despite their written requests. The lawyer
submitted that a number of anonymous telephone calls had been made to
the mobile telephone which had been owned by Mr
Beker and which had since been returned to the family. The
callers had stated that Mr Beker
had been murdered. The lawyer submitted that the lack of information
about the investigation strengthened the family's conviction that Mr
Beker had indeed been murdered.
- A
military prosecutor in Elazığ replied to the lawyer's
letter on 30 January 2002, enclosing a copy of the post-mortem
report. The prosecutor stated that, as the investigation was still
continuing, no decisions had been taken yet.
- On
8 November 2002 the military prosecutor in Elazığ decided
to close the investigation. He concluded that Mr
Beker had shot himself in the “right temple and at close
range” because his mother had opposed his marriage to his
girlfriend. He had thus been feeling unhappy. No one had helped him
to commit suicide.
- The
military prosecutor's decision is largely devoted to notes reproduced
from a notebook which had apparently been found among Mr Beker's
personal belongings following his death. Some of the notes are
confused and resemble a suicide note.
- On
9 December 2002 the applicants lodged an objection to the military
prosecutor's decision to close the investigation. They pointed out,
inter alia, that gunpowder residue had been found on Mr
Beker's right hand but the bullet entry hole had been on the
left side of the head. According to the applicants, it was improbable
that a person would commit suicide by shooting himself in the left
side of the head with his right hand. Furthermore, they drew
attention to the failure to determine the distance between the place
where the pistol was found and the place where Mr
Beker had fallen. They also pointed to the fact that the
military prosecutor had not investigated the conflicting statements
made by the officers who had witnessed the incident.
- On
16 December 2002 a military court rejected the objection lodged by
the applicants, considering that all necessary investigative steps
had already been taken.
- On
18 March 2003 the applicants wrote to the Elazığ military
prosecutor's office and asked for the investigation to be reopened.
In their request they repeated their above-mentioned arguments and
added that they had not been consulted during the investigation. They
also argued that the case file should have been sent to the Forensic
Medicine Institute with a view to obtaining that Institute's opinion
as to whether it would have been possible for Mr
Beker to commit suicide by shooting himself in the left side
of the head with his right hand. They pointed out that the pistol
used in the incident had been semi-automatic, meaning that the
trigger had to be pulled for each shot and, as such, it would not
have been possible for Mr Beker
to shoot himself a second time after a bullet had already entered and
exited his head. Nevertheless, according to the investigation, the
pistol was found cocked and it was established that it had failed to
fire a third time. To try to shoot himself a third time, they
maintained, would have been impossible.
- The
applicants also submitted in their request that neither the pistol
nor the wooden stick allegedly used to smash the padlock on T.Y.'s
locker, nor the locker itself, had been examined for fingerprints to
establish whether Mr Beker's
fingerprints were on them.
- They
asked the military prosecutor to carry out another investigation with
a view to eliminating these unresolved issues and to determine with
certainty whether Mr Beker
had been killed or had committed suicide as alleged. They maintained
that, even assuming that Mr
Beker had committed suicide, those responsible for the failure
to ensure his psychological well being should be prosecuted.
- The
applicants did not receive any information about the outcome of their
application for a reopening of the investigation.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that Mustafa
Beker's right to life had been violated either intentionally
or due to negligence. Article 2 of the Convention reads in its
relevant part as follows:
“1. Everyone's right to life shall be
protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally
save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his
conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. ...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
applicants submitted that the authorities had failed to take a number
of crucial steps in their investigation into Mr
Beker's death. As a result, suspicions surrounding the death
had not been eliminated.
- The
Government were of the opinion that a detailed and effective
investigation had been carried out into Mr
Beker's death, which had established that Mr
Beker had taken his own life.
- In
order to be able to examine the complaint, the Court must first
establish whether the respondent State is under an obligation to
account for Mr Beker's death. To that end the Court reiterates
that, according to the Court's established case-law, States bear the
burden of providing plausible explanations for injuries and deaths
occurred in custody, failing which a clear issue arises under Article
3 or 2 of the Convention (see, respectively, Selmouni v. France
[GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999 V; Salman v. Turkey
[GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII). The underlying reason
for this is that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and
that the authorities are under a duty to protect them.
- Since
the adoption of the judgment in the case of Akkum and Others
v. Turkey, the above-mentioned obligation has been held to
cover injuries or deaths which occurred, not only in custody, but
also in areas within the exclusive control of the authorities of the
State because, in both situations, the events in issue lie wholly, or
in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities (no.
21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005 II (extracts); see also Yasin
Ateş v. Turkey, no. 30949/96, § 94, 31 May 2005).
- In
the present case Mr Beker was found dead in an army barracks and all
eyewitnesses to the incident were members of the armed forces.
Moreover, the inquiry was conducted by military authorities and the
family were not given permission to participate in the investigation.
As such, only the military authorities had the means of establishing
the cause of death and, if necessary, identifying and punishing those
responsible for it. It follows from this that the respondent State
bears the burden of providing a plausible explanation for Mr Beker's
death which took place in an area under the control of its military
agents.
- In
order to establish whether the Government have satisfactorily
discharged that burden, the Court has had regard to the investigation
carried out by the military authorities and the conclusions reached
by them. When notice of the present application was given to the
Government, the facts as presented by the applicants led the Court to
put a number of specific questions relating to the way in which the
military had conducted their inquiry which concluded that Mr Beker
had committed suicide. The Court notes with regret that the replies
received are incapable of dispelling the very serious misgivings it
has about this investigation.
- The
Court observes at the outset that no attempt appears to have been
made by the military investigator or the military prosecutor to
explain the fact that the gun at issue had been fired twice, with a
third attempt to fire it. Even if it is assumed that Mr
Beker missed with the first shot, it follows logically from
the conclusion that he killed himself that he must have been
successful on the second attempt – yet according to the
findings another attempt was made to fire the gun. This issue was not
examined by the Military Court when it dismissed the applicants'
objection to the prosecutor's decision (see paragraph 31 above).
Moreover, although the Court had specifically requested the
Government to address this issue in their observations, they failed
to mention it.
- The
second serious and inexplicable aspect of the investigation was the
military prosecutor's conclusion that Mr
Beker had shot himself in the right side of the head when the
post-mortem reports showed – and the Government agreed –
that he had in fact been shot in the left side of the head. According
to the Government, this had merely been an error of fact on the part
of that prosecutor. The Government did not explain, however, why the
Military Court which examined the applicants' objection against the
prosecutor's decision did not deal with that “factual error”.
The Court is thus not convinced that this was a mere error.
- Thirdly,
the pistol which was found next to Mr
Beker's body was not forensically examined for fingerprints
with a view to establishing whether or not it had been handled by
him. This failure is all the more important in view of the fact that
the pistol was not his own but belonged to one of his colleagues (see
paragraph 9 above). Similarly, the locker from which Mr Beker
allegedly took that pistol was not examined for fingerprints (see
paragraph 9 above).
- Fourthly, the Court is struck by the statements made
by the four expert sergeants, who were present in the room when Mr
Beker allegedly killed himself and who stated that they had
not seen the incident (see paragraph 13 above). The Court finds
it wholly unconvincing that four trained military officials present
in the same room where two shots were fired from a pistol did not see
the incident or that they covered their faces in shock (see paragraph
15 above). Nevertheless, no attempt was made by the investigating
authorities to press these expert sergeants with a view to
discovering the truth.
- Fifthly,
with the exception of providing Mr
Beker's family with a copy of the post-mortem report (see
paragraph 27 above), the military authorities did not divulge any
information or provide them with any documents. Nor did they allow
them access to the investigation, notwithstanding the numerous
attempts made by the latter and their lawyer to obtain information
and documents. In the opinion of the Court, the failure of the
authorities to involve the applicants in the investigation or even to
provide information on it – for which failure the Government
have not offered any explanation – deprived the applicants of
the opportunity to safeguard their legitimate interests. The same
failure also prevented any scrutiny of the investigation by the
public (see Güleç v. Turkey, 27 July 1998, §
82, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 IV).
- Similarly,
when the applicants asked the military prosecutor to reopen the
enquiry and investigate further a number of very serious shortcomings
in the previous investigation (see paragraph 32 above), they did not
even receive a response. The Government, who had been requested by
the Court to clarify whether any action had been taken in relation to
the applicants' reopening request submitted that “no such
application [had been] made by the applicants to the Ministry of
National Defence on 18 March 2003”. The Court notes that
the applicants never stated that they had applied to the Ministry of
Defence. In any event, it is to be observed that the Government did
not dispute that an application had indeed been made by the
applicants on 18 March 2003 to the office of the military prosecutor,
which has jurisdiction to investigate such matters. The fact that the
applicants' request for the reopening of the investigation remained
unanswered is particularly regrettable because the Court considers
that investigating the pertinent points raised by the applicants
might have enabled the authorities to establish the circumstances
surrounding the death and thereby comply with their obligations under
Article 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Anık
and Others v. Turkey, no. 63758/00, § 76, 5 June
2007).
- In
view of the above, the Court considers that the investigation carried
out at the domestic level was clearly inadequate and left so many
obvious questions unanswered that it is unable to accept the
conclusion that Mr Beker had committed suicide. To hold otherwise
would mean accepting as fact either of the following two improbable
scenarios:
– Mr
Beker shot himself in the left side of his head using his
right hand and then pulled the trigger two more times; or,
– he
missed the first time, shot himself in the left side of the head with
the second bullet and then pulled the trigger again, on which
occasion the pistol jammed.
Moreover,
by closing the investigation when they did, the authorities deprived
the applicants of the opportunity to find out and be convinced as to
why, how and by whose hand their close relative had died.
- Indeed,
in view of the apparent carelessness with which the investigation was
conducted, the fact that the conclusion reached defies logic, the
unwillingness to reopen the investigation, and the lack of
satisfactory explanations (see paragraphs 45 and 46 above) proffered
by the Government, the applicants could be forgiven for thinking that
the investigation might be covering up a more sinister explanation,
such as murder.
- In
the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that no meaningful
investigation was conducted at the domestic level capable of
establishing the true facts surrounding the death of Mustafa Beker.
Consequently, it concludes that the Government have failed to account
for this death and the State must bear the responsibility for it.
- It
follows that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the
Convention in respect of Mr Beker's demise.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- Relying
on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants argued that the
investigation into the death had not been fair and that they had been
deprived of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of
the Convention.
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
Court considers that these complaints may be declared admissible.
However, having regard to the violation found above, the Court deems
it unnecessary to examine these complaints separately on the merits.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
first applicant Fadik Beker claimed 42,324.27 euros (EUR) in respect
of pecuniary damage for the killing of her son Mustafa Beker who, she
submitted, used to provide her with financial assistance. In respect
of that claim Mrs Beker relied on an expert report which takes into
account a number of parameters, including, in particular, the age and
monthly income of Mustafa Beker at the time of his death and the
statutory retirement age.
- Fadik
Beker also claimed EUR 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Each of the remaining three applicants claimed the sum of EUR 25,000
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government were of the opinion that the claims for pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damages were unsubstantiated and that there was no
causal connection between the pecuniary damage and the alleged
violations.
- The
Court's case-law has established that there must be a clear causal
connection between the damages claimed by an applicant and the
violation of the Convention and that this may, in appropriate cases,
include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, among other
authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain
(Article 50), 13 June 1994, §§ 16 20, Series
A no. 285-C). The Court has found (see paragraphs 53 54
above) that the authorities were liable under Article 2 of the
Convention for the death of the first applicant Mrs Beker's son. It
also notes that Mrs Beker's submission that her son had been
providing for her financially was not disputed by the Government. In
these circumstances, a direct causal link has been established
between the violation of Article 2 and the first applicant's loss of
the financial support provided by her son.
- The
Court, having regard to similar cases (Kişmir v. Turkey,
no. 27306/95, § 154, 31 May 2005; Akdeniz v. Turkey,
no. 25165/94, § 150, 31 May 2005) and deciding on an
equitable basis, awards the first applicant, Mrs Fadik Beker,
the sum of EUR 16,500 in respect of pecuniary damage.
- Furthermore,
deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 20,000 to
the first applicant, Mrs Fadik Beker, and EUR 5,000 to each of the
other applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants claimed that their lawyers had spent approximately fifteen
hours on the case and submitted to the Court a time sheet in support
of that request. They also referred to the recommendation of the
Elazığ Bar Association and the General Bar Association of
Turkey for hourly fees and left it to the Court's discretion to
decide the hourly rate. The Court notes that the General Bar
Association of Turkey recommends approximately EUR 55 per hour,
whereas the Elazığ Bar Association recommends approximately
EUR 200 per hour for legal fees.
- The
applicants also claimed the sum of EUR 125 in respect of various
stationery, postage and transport costs, and EUR 100 for the fees of
an expert who drew up the report relied on by them in respect of
their claim for pecuniary damage (see paragraph 59 above). The
applicants submitted a bill, which is certified “paid” by
this expert.
- The
Government were of the opinion that no receipts or documents were
provided by the applicants in respect of their claims. They also
considered that neither private contracts between lawyers and their
clients, nor Bar scale fees could be relied on when making an award
for legal fees. They invited the Court not to make any award in
respect of costs and expenses.
- The
Court observes that, contrary to the Government's opinion, the
applicants did submit to the Court a time sheet showing the hours
spent by their lawyers on the case. It also observes that such time
sheets have been accepted by the Court as supporting documents in a
number of cases (see, most recently, Ayhan and Others v. Turkey,
no. 29287/02, § 31, 14 October 2008; Osman Karademir
v. Turkey, no. 30009/03, § 69, 22 July 2008; Karabulut
v. Turkey, no. 56015/00, § 62, 24 January 2008).
Furthermore, contrary to the Government's submissions, the applicants
did submit a bill in respect of the fees of the expert. Both the time
sheet and the bill were forwarded to the respondent Government for
comments and the Government did not challenge them.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. Regard being had to the information and
documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the applicants jointly EUR 2,000 for
their costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
2 of the Convention;
- Holds that there is no need to examine
separately the complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on
which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into
Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) to
the first applicant, Mrs Fadik Beker, EUR 16,500 (sixteen thousand
five hundred euros) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 20,000
(twenty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any
tax that may be chargeable;
(ii) to
each of the other three applicants, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros),
plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary
damage; and
(iii) to
the four applicants jointly, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in
respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to
them;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 March 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
