[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Cemalettin Canli v Turkey - 22427/04 [2011] ECHR 2390 (13 December 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2390.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 2390

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)309¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Cemalettin Canlı against Turkey

(Application No. 22427/04, judgment of 18/11/2008, final on 18/02/2009)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the applicant’s right to respect of his private life in that the police prepared and submitted to a domestic court an inaccurate report in the context of criminal proceedings against him (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)309

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Cemalettin Canlı against Turkey

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the infringement of the applicant’s right to respect of his private life in that the police prepared and submitted to a domestic court an inaccurate report in the context of criminal proceedings against him (violation of Article 8).

The European Court noted that, since the applicant had never been convicted by a court of membership to illegal organisation, the reference to the applicant as a “member” of such an organisation in a police report had been potentially damaging to his reputation. The Court observed that the Police regulations on fingerprinting obliged the police to include in their records all information regarding the outcome of any criminal proceedings in respect of persons accused of serious offences, including membership of an illegal organisation (the offence with which the applicant had been charged in the past but of which he had been subsequently acquitted in 1990). Nevertheless, not only had the information in the applicant’s report been false, but it had also omitted any mention of his acquittal and the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings in 1990. Moreover, the decisions rendered in 1990 had not been appended to the report when it was submitted to the court in 2003. Those failures, in the opinion of the Court, were contrary to the unambiguous requirements of the Police Regulations and deprived the applicant a number of substantial procedural safeguards provided by domestic law for the protection of his rights under Article 8. Accordingly, the Court found that the drafting and submission to the court by the police of the report in question had not been “in accordance with the law”.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

The European Court considering that the applicant must have suffered non-pecuniary damage, such as distress and frustration, on account of the publication in the press of defamatory information about him and awarded him an amount of just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The European Court’s judgment was translated into Turkish and sent out to the relevant authorities. The Turkish authorities considered that the problem revealed by this judgment was an isolated one and that the publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would therefore be sufficient to prevent similar violations in the future.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.