ITEMID: 001-113410
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2012
DOCNAME: CASE OF EĞİTİM VE BİLİM EMEKÇİLERİ SENDİKASI v. TURKEY [Extracts]
IMPORTANCE: 1
CONCLUSION: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award
JUDGES: András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Helen Keller;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
TEXT: 5. Eğitim-Sen, the Education and Science Workers’ Union (“the union”) was formed in Ankara on 13 January 1995. According to the information it has provided, the union has 167,000 members with 90 branches and is present in 430 towns and cities. It is affiliated to the KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – the Confederation of Public Sector Workers’ Union), which is a member of Education International.
6. On 15 September 2001 the union amended Article 2 (b) of its constitution to read as follows:
“[Eğitim-Sen] defends the right of all individuals in society to receive, with equality and freedom, a democratic, secular, scientific and cost-free education in their mother tongue.”
7. On 15 February 2002 the Governor of Ankara requested the applicant union to delete the words “their mother tongue” from its constitution on the ground that they were in breach of Articles 3 and 42 of the Constitution and of sections 1 and 20 of Law no. 4688 on public servants’ unions.
8. The applicant union informed the Governor that it was too busy but that it undertook to amend its constitution by 30 June 2002.
9. On 29 March 2002, under section 37 of Law no. 4688, the Governor of Ankara requested the public prosecutor of Ankara to bring an action for dissolution against the applicant union on the ground that it had not carried out the requisite amendment of Article 2 (b) of its constitution.
10. On 3 July 2002 the applicant union amended Article 2 (b) of its constitution to read as follows:
“[Eğitim-Sen] defends the right of all individuals in society to receive education in their mother tongue and to benefit from the development of their culture.”
11. On 16 July 2002 the public prosecutor gave a decision discontinuing the dissolution proceedings initiated by the Governor, on grounds of insufficient evidence and incriminating factors. In his decision the public prosecutor indicated, firstly, that the applicant union had amended Article 2 (b) of its constitution, which now provided that individuals should “receive education in their mother tongue”; he further stated that the matter was being discussed in some depth both publicly and in political parties and that it would be tabled for debate in Parliament. He concluded that, in those circumstances, it was not appropriate to bring dissolution proceedings against the applicant union or criminal proceedings against the members of its board.
12. On 15 October 2002 the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (“the Ministry”) informed the applicant union that, following the examination of its constitution, as amended on 3 July 2002 to comply with the relevant provisions of Law no. 4688, it had been concluded that the impugned Article was no longer in breach of the law.
13. On 27 June 2003 the Office of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces requested the Ministry to take the necessary measures against the applicant union on the ground that Article 2 (b) of its constitution, as amended on 3 July 2002, was in breach of Articles 3 and 42 of the Constitution.
14. On 15 July 2003 the Ministry requested the Governor of Ankara to examine the provisions of Article 2 (b) of the applicant union’s constitution in the light of section 6 of Law no. 4688.
15. On 28 October 2003 the Governor of Ankara requested the applicant union to delete the words “receive education in their mother tongue” from Article 2 (b) of its constitution.
16. On 12 April 2004 the Governor of Ankara, referring to the provisions of Article 2 (b) of the applicant union’s constitution and summing up the first set of proceedings against it, applied to the public prosecutor of Ankara to initiate fresh dissolution proceedings. The Governor explained that, even though Law no. 2923 of 14 October 1983 provided for the teaching of a number of languages and dialects, Article 2 of the applicant union’s constitution, in so far as it provided for education in a language other than Turkish, was in breach of that Law.
17. On 10 July 2004 the public prosecutor of Ankara brought proceedings against the seven members of the executive board of EğitimSen. In the context of that action, the prosecutor further requested the dissolution of the applicant union under section 37 of Law no. 4688 on the ground that the union had not deleted the impugned wording from its constitution.
18. The Ankara Employment Tribunal assumed jurisdiction to rule on the application for the dissolution of the applicant union pursuant to Law no. 4688.
19. On 13 July 2004 the Ankara Employment Tribunal, applying section 6 of Law no. 4688, granted the applicant union a period of sixty days to amend the impugned provisions of its constitution.
20. In a judgment of 15 September 2004, the Ankara Employment Tribunal dismissed the application for dissolution. In its reasoning it indicated in particular that the relevant Articles of Eğitim-Sen’s constitution did not jeopardise (tehlike) territorial, national or State unity or the existing borders of the Republic of Turkey. It did not find that the union had committed any unlawful action capable of suggesting that the provisions of the impugned Article of Eğitim-Sen’s constitution would be used by those opposed to the unity of the Republic of Turkey. Based on Article 90 of the Constitution and Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the tribunal also gave its own interpretation of Articles 10 and 11. It explained in this connection that freedom of expression constituted the basis of a democratic and pluralistic society, and that such freedom was a necessary condition for the progression of democratic societies and the personal development of each individual. It emphasised that, without such freedom, there was no democracy. It concluded that the provisions of Article 2 (b) of Eğitim-Sen’s constitution were not in breach of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. It further indicated that section 6(8) of Law no. 4688 – which granted sixty days to a union to comply with the law – should be interpreted in the light of the purpose of that Law. According to the tribunal, even if the union had not complied with the law within the time allowed, it was still for the tribunal to examine whether the application was well-founded and to rule on the merits of the case.
21. On 29 September 2004 the public prosecutor appealed on points of law.
22. In a judgment of 3 November 2004, the Court of Cassation overturned the judgment of 15 September 2004 on the ground that the Ankara Employment Tribunal had not correctly applied section 6(8) of Law no. 4688. It took the view that this section did not allow for any latitude of interpretation and that the dissolution of the union was mandatory where it had not complied with the provisions of the Law within a period of sixty days. It therefore concluded that Eğitim-Sen had to be dissolved, as it had not complied with the law within the time allowed to it by the Governor and the tribunal.
23. In a judgment of 21 February 2005, the Ankara Employment Tribunal, contrary to the Court of Cassation’s judgment of 3 November 2004, reiterated its original findings. It referred back to the legal reasoning used in its judgment of 15 September 2004 and invoked the Strasbourg case-law on the dissolution of political parties, in particular the cases concerning the United Communist Party of Turkey and the Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP). It further observed that the official language of the Republic of Turkey was Turkish and that, according to Article 66 of the Constitution, any individual attached to the Republic by citizenship was Turkish. In its view, the fact of learning a language other than the official language did not constitute an action or conduct in breach of the law, but such conduct was proof of an attachment to the State of Turkey. Whilst agreeing that the official language was Turkish and that there could not be any other official language, it found that there should not be any particular impediment to the learning of other languages. Referring to its previous reasoning, based on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the tribunal found that there were two main grounds for the dissolution of a union, an association or a political party, namely “an imminent threat” and “the criterion of violence”. It observed that the union whose dissolution was sought defended in its constitution the principle of education in one’s own mother tongue and the development of culture. It emphasised that, even supposing that the wording in question was illegal, the content and weight of the terms did not constitute an imminent threat or an incitement to violence and their inclusion in the union’s constitution did not jeopardise territorial, national or State unity or the existing borders of the Republic of Turkey. It found, on the contrary, that the decision not to dissolve the union would have the effect of calming the social tension, disorder and antagonism that were prevalent in society, and of restoring social peace.
24. In a judgment of 22 May 2005, the combined divisions of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) quashed by a majority the judgment of the court below. In its reasoning the court indicated that Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention provided for statutory limitations to the exercise of the freedoms of expression, assembly and association and that they notably stipulated that such restrictions had to be necessary in a democratic society. It was therefore the court’s task to verify whether the restrictions imposed by domestic law on fundamental rights and freedoms were consistent with Turkey’s international commitments. The court took the view that the union’s call for education in a mother tongue other than Turkish was in breach of Articles 3 and 42 of the Constitution and that it ran counter to the acceptance of a unitary State and to the existing legal system. In the court’s opinion, the right to form a union could thus be limited and such restrictions were necessary in a democratic society. The combined divisions of the Court of Cassation concluded that the defence of education in a mother tongue other than Turkish could not rely on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
25. In their dissenting opinion, some of the members of the combined divisions of the Court of Cassation, relying on section 6 of Law no. 4688, observed that, according to the conclusion of the court below, the impugned provisions of the union’s constitution were compliant with the law. The dissenting judges were of the view that, as a result, there had been no legal basis on which to order the union to amend its constitution within sixty days. They stated that the judgment had to be quashed to enable the court below to comply with section 6 of Law no. 4688 and not for the purpose of having the union dissolved.
26. On 3 July 2005 the applicant union amended the offending part of Article 2 (b) of its constitution to read as follows:
“[Eğitim-Sen] defends, in the context of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the right of all individuals in society to receive a democratic, secular, scientific and cost-free education.”
27. In a judgment of 27 October 2005, the Ankara Employment Tribunal, taking note of the amendment to the union’s constitution, found that there was no longer any reason to rule on the dissolution of the union, since the material elements that had given rise to the action no longer existed.
28. The relevant provisions of the Turkish Constitution, as in force at the material time, read as follows.
“1. The State of Turkey constitutes, with its territory and nation, an indivisible whole. The official language is Turkish. ...”
“Fundamental rights and freedoms may be restricted only by law and on the grounds set out in special provisions of the Constitution, provided always that the essence of such rights and freedoms remain intact. Any such restriction must not conflict with the letter or spirit of the Constitution or the requirements of a democratic, secular social order and must comply with the principle of proportionality.”
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and opinion.
No one may be compelled to reveal his thoughts and opinions or be reprimanded or incriminated on account of his thoughts or opinions for any reason and for any purpose whatsoever.”
“Everyone has the right to express, individually or collectively, his thoughts and opinions and to disseminate them orally, in writing, in image or by any other means. This right includes the freedom to receive or impart information and ideas without interference by public authority. The present paragraph shall not preclude the imposition of rules concerning the licensing of broadcasting, television, cinema or other similar enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms may be restricted in the interests of national security, public order and public safety, for the preservation of the fundamental characteristics of the Republic, to protect the indivisible integrity of the State in terms of its territory and nation, to prevent crime, to punish offenders, to prevent the disclosure of information covered by State secrecy, to protect the honour, rights and private and family life of others, together with professional secrecy as provided for by law, and to ensure the fulfilment of the judicial function in accordance with its purpose.
Rules governing the use of any means of conveying information and ideas are not to be regarded as restricting freedom of expression or freedom to impart ideas, provided they do not prevent such information or ideas from being conveyed.
Any formalities, conditions and procedures concerning the exercise of freedom of expression and the conveying of ideas shall be regulated by law.”
“No one may be deprived of the right to education. ...
Citizens are not absolved from the duty to remain loyal to the Constitution by the freedom of education.
...
No language other than Turkish may be taught to Turkish citizens as their mother tongue or be used for the purposes of teaching in educational institutions. The law lays down the rules concerning the teaching of foreign languages in educational institutions and those that must be complied with by schools where education is provided in a foreign language. The provisions of international conventions are reserved.”
“Employees and employers shall have the right to form trade unions and federations of unions, without prior permission, in order to safeguard and develop the economic and social rights and interests of their members in the context of their labour relations, and to join or withdraw from such entities of their own free will. No one shall be compelled to join or resign from a trade union.
The right to form a union may only be limited as prescribed by law in the interests of national security or public order, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of public health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
The formalities, conditions and procedures applicable to the right to form a trade union shall be prescribed by law.
Membership of more than one trade union within the same sector of activity shall be prohibited.
The scope of the rights, in this sphere, of public officials other than those who have the status of ordinary contractual employee, and the exceptions and limitations applicable to them, shall be prescribed by law in a manner appropriate to the nature of the services they provide.
The constitution, administration and functioning of trade unions and federations of unions shall not be inconsistent with the fundamental characteristics of the Republic or with democratic principles.”
“Any individual who is connected to the Turkish State by nationality shall be Turkish. ...”
“...
In the event of conflict as to the scope of fundamental rights and freedoms between an international agreement duly in force and a domestic statute, the provisions of the international agreement shall prevail.”
29. The relevant provisions of Law no. 4688 read as follows.
“(1) Trade unions and confederations may be formed freely and without prior authorisation. ...
(7) ... In the event of failure to remedy [the breaches observed, the Governor] shall apply to the court for the termination of the activities of the trade union or confederation. ...
(8) The court shall allow a time-limit not exceeding sixty days [for the trade union or confederation] to comply with the law or remedy the breaches observed. If, at the end of the said period, the constitution or the documents in question are not compliant with the law, the court may order the dissolution of the union or confederation. ...”
“The administration and functioning of trade unions and confederations formed hereunder shall not be incompatible with the democratic qualities and principles of the Republic as defined in the Constitution. ...”
“Any trade union or confederation which engages in activities that are incompatible with the qualities and principles of the Republic as defined in the Constitution shall be dissolved by decision of the court which has jurisdiction to hear labour disputes, on an application by the public prosecutor for the district where the registered office [of the union or confederation] is situated. ...”
30. Section 2(a) of Law no. 2923 provides that no language other than Turkish may be taught to Turkish citizens in educational establishments. However, it is permitted to make available to Turkish citizens private classes for the teaching of languages and dialects that they use traditionally in their daily lives, in accordance with a regulation adopted by the Minister for National Education. The teaching of such classes must not undermine the unity of the State and the nation or the indivisibility of national territory.
31. In its latest report on Turkey (paragraphs 60, 61, 62, 63, 70 and 71), adopted on 10 December 2010 and published on 8 February 2011, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) reported as follows.
“Teaching in and of languages other than Turkish to persons belonging to minority groups other than those recognised under the Treaty of Lausanne
...
60. Law no. 4771, enacted in August 2002 and which amended Law no. 2923 on foreign-language education and teaching and the learning of different languages and dialects by Turkish citizens, paved the way for opening private schools to teach ‘languages and dialects traditionally used by Turkish citizens in their daily lives’. In accordance with the Regulation on learning of different languages and dialects traditionally used by Turkish citizens in their daily lives, which came into effect on 5 December 2003, Kurdish language courses opened in seven towns between December 2003 and October 2004. However, all have since closed, and other attempts to open a Circassian language school in Ankara did not come to fruition as the relevant administrative requirements could not be met. The authorities have indicated that applications to open Adyghe and Abkhazian private courses are still being examined by the relevant Governorships in accordance with the above Regulation. At present, there are thus no private language schools open in Turkey for the teaching of the languages spoken by minority groups. ...
61. ... ECRI welcomes the decision taken by the Turkish authorities in October 2009 to open a Living Languages Institute at Mardin’s Artuklu University, at which Kurdish could be taught; courses in Syriac, Farsi and Arabic were also reportedly to be offered at the institute’s opening in February 2010. ... At the same time, ECRI notes with regret that in September 2009, the Council rejected a similar application to open a department of Kurdish studies and Kurdish language and literature at the University of Diyarbakır, on the grounds that the application – introduced by the local Bar Association – had been made by a body that supported terrorism.
62. ECRI recommends that the Turkish authorities revise the wording of Article 42 of the Constitution, which prohibits the teaching of non-Turkish mother tongues in schools except in accordance with provisions of international treaties. ECRI again emphasises that it should be possible for such tuition to be provided alongside tuition in the official language.
63. In addition, ECRI strongly recommends that the Turkish authorities pursue their efforts in favour of tuition in languages and dialects traditionally used in Turkey. It recommends that full effect be given to the existing possibility of opening private courses, particularly by removing all undue administrative obstacles.
...
Schooling provided in Turkish to children whose mother tongue is not Turkish
...
70. ECRI again recommends that the Turkish authorities look into the situation of children of non-Turkish mother tongue and ensure that every effort is made to enable them to learn Turkish, the language of instruction, properly, for example through the provision of additional courses or methods for teaching Turkish as a second language. More broadly, ECRI recommends that the authorities conduct research into the overall situation within the education system of children belonging to minority groups, in order to allow targeted measures to be taken to remedy any inequalities in this field.
71. ECRI recommends that the Turkish authorities engage in dialogue with minority groups on the manner in which the concept of citizenship of the Turkish State is taught in schools, in order to ensure that the desired message of inclusiveness is imparted without leading to a sense that diversity is unwanted.”
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 10
11
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 10-1
11-1


ITEMID: 001-97060
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: POL
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2010
DOCNAME: CASE OF DĄBROWSKA v. POLAND
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - award
JUDGES: David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä
TEXT: 5. The applicant lives in Białystok.
6. In 1991 the applicant married Mr S.D. On 21 December 1998 their son J. was born.
7. In February 2006 the applicant's husband took their son for a winter holiday but afterwards failed to return with him to the family's flat. The applicant's husband rented a new flat and started hindering the applicant's contact with her son.
8. In February 2006 the applicant filed for divorce.
9. On 24 May 2006 the Białystok District Court (Sąd Okręgowy) gave an interim order which stipulated that, during the divorce proceedings, the child's place of residence would be with the applicant. The court ordered the applicant's husband to pay child maintenance and granted him access to J. on Thursdays and every other Saturday and Sunday. The interim order became final and enforceable on 25 May 2006.
10. On 5 July 2006 the District Court ordered the court-appointed guardians to enforce the decision of 24 May 2006 and to remove the child from his father's care.
11. On 14 July 2006 one of the guardians made a first attempt to enforce the court's order, which failed owing to the attitude of the father who refused to hand J. over to his mother. The guardian refused to call for police assistance or to inform the public prosecutor about the events.
12. The applicant informed the prosecutor that her child had been kidnapped by her husband. However, on 25 July 2006 the Kolno District Prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings, finding that no offence had been committed. This decision was upheld by the Białystok District Court on an unspecified later date.
13. The applicant was unable to assist the same guardian in her next attempt to remove the child from his father's care, which had been scheduled for 11 August 2006. Consequently, it had to be cancelled.
14. Given the subsequent inactivity of the guardians, the applicant lodged a complaint with the District Court on 6 December 2006.
15. In reply, she was informed by the President of the Łomża District Court that the guardians had received an instruction from a family court judge to cease their attempts to remove the child.
16. Following her second complaint about the court-appointed guardians, on 16 and 17 January and 5 February 2007, the President of the Białystok Regional Court (Prezes Sądu Okręgowego) wrote to the applicant informing her that he agreed that there had been shortcomings in the guardians' attempts to remove the child from his father's care and that new measures would shortly be taken. He noted, in particular, that before ordering a forced removal of the child, the applicant's husband should have been invited to voluntarily hand J. over. This had resulted in the unsuccessful enforcement of the court's order.
17. On 12 February 2007 the guardians made another attempt to remove the child. However, the applicant's husband had gone with the child to the adjacent flat. Both the guardians and the police refused to enter that flat.
18. On 20 February 2007 the Białystok District Court ordered the applicant's husband to hand over the child voluntarily to his mother within three days.
19. Since the father had failed to comply with this order, on 19 March 2007 the Białystok District Court gave a decision in which it authorised the court-appointed guardians to forcibly remove the child.
20. At a hearing held on 30 March 2007, in the course of the divorce proceedings, the court heard experts who had prepared an expert opinion requested by the court. They testified that the child's father had been manipulating the child with the aim of alienating him from his mother. The father had also made it difficult for the child to rebuild his relationship with his mother by ensuring that there was no private contact between her and the child. During visits the father was always present. In the best interest of the child, the experts recommended that custody be given to the applicant.
21. On 30 March 2007 the guardians made a fourth attempt to remove the child while he was at school. However, it was unsuccessful because the father had been notified by one of the guardians about the plan and thus did not bring the child to school on that day.
22. The guardians scheduled the next attempt to remove the child for sometime between 6 and 26 April 2007; however, it did not take place as the applicant did not receive formal notification until 28 April 2007. On 19 July 2007 the Białystok Regional Court considered that the late notification given to the applicant had been in violation of the domestic law.
23. On 27 August 2007 one of the guardians again attempted to remove the child; however, the child's father refused to open the door to the applicant and the guardian.
24. In August 2007 the applicant's former husband went into hiding with the child, so the guardians could not notify him of the next planned action. Even so, they did not inform the Kolno District Prosecutor about this fact until 29 November 2007. Subsequently, the Białystok District Court ordered that the applicant's former husband be heard by the Łomża District Court; for an unknown reason this order has never been carried out.
25. On 10 September 2007 the Białystok Regional Court dissolved the applicant's marriage. The court also decided to award the applicant full parental rights over J. It further found that the best interests of J. required that his place of residence be with his mother. The parental rights of the applicant's former husband were limited to decisions regarding the child's health and education. He was ordered to pay child maintenance and authorised to visit J. according to the arrangements set out in the judgment. The court considered that the applicant's former husband had been manipulating the child and alienating J. from his mother and other members of his family.
26. The applicant's husband lodged an appeal against the judgment.
27. Since September 2007 the applicant's child has not been attending school. On 5 December 2007 the applicant was fined for not fulfilling J.'s educational obligations. It appears that the decision was later quashed.
28. On 15 October 2007 the applicant received a reply from the President of the Białystok Regional Court to another of her complaints about the guardians' inefficiency. The President considered that some delays had been caused by the father's obstructive attitude but also by a lack of co-operation between the applicant and the guardians. Nevertheless, the last action by one of the guardians, which had taken place on 30 August 2007, had shown a lack of diligence, and the guardian had been instructed to make better use of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Article 598¹¹).
29. On 28 February 2008 the Białystok Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the divorce judgment and dismissed the applicant's husband's appeal as manifestly ill-founded. The judgment is final.
30. On 14 April 2008 the Białystok District Court decided to discontinue the proceedings concerning the enforcement of the court's order of 24 May 2006. It found that the enforcement proceedings had lost their legal basis in the light of the final judgment pronouncing the applicant's divorce. On 17 June 2008 the Białystok Regional Court quashed that decision. The court considered that the enforcement proceedings should be continued since parental rights had been awarded to the applicant and she wished the proceedings aiming at the enforcement of the court's decisions to be continued. Moreover, the child remained in the care of an unauthorised person.
31. On 14 August 2008 the President of the Bialystok Regional Court again replied to the applicant's complaints that the enforcement proceedings were taking too long. The President informed the applicant that he would be personally overseeing the enforcement proceedings. He also stated that “the enforcement is still not effective and incorrect procedural decisions have again been taken, which have led to the proceedings being unnecessarily protracted”.
32. On an unspecified later date the applicant's former husband applied to be granted custody of J and to change the decision limiting his parental rights.
33. On 2 April 2009 the Bialystok District Court, sitting in camera, gave a temporary order in which it decided that, until the matter of custody was re-examined on the merits, the child's place of residence should be with his father. The court pointed to the fact that the child had been living with his father prior to the divorce proceedings and had very few ties with his mother. The court took into consideration that the child, who was eleven years old, had expressed his preference to live with his father. Moreover, the court considered that J. had been having contact with the applicant and that remaining temporarily with his father would be in his best interest.
34. The applicant appealed against the decision, complaining that she had not been informed of the proceedings to change the custody order instituted by her former husband and that the decision had been issued without holding a hearing. She maintained that the child's father had not been properly caring for J. and had not fulfilled the court's orders.
35. On 13 May 2009 the Bialystok Regional Court upheld the decision and dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court held that it had been necessary to legalise the existing status quo as J. had been in the care of his father since 2006.
36. To date J. has not been removed from his father's care. Prior to 2 April 2009, that had been in breach of the interim order of 24 May 2006 and the final divorce judgment of 10 September 2007. During that time, the applicant had only had infrequent contact with J., always in public places and in the presence of the child's father.
37. Article 5986 of the 1964 Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) provides that if a person who is ordered to return a child does not comply with the court's order, the court will instruct the guardian to forcibly remove the persons concerned (przymusowe odebranie osoby).
Under Article 59810,
“Upon a request of a court-appointed guardian, the police are obliged to help him or her to carry out the forcible removal of [a minor].”
Article 59811 § 1 provides as follows:
“If forcible removal of [a minor] is hindered because that person is in hiding or because other action is taken with the aim of stopping the enforcement of the order, the court-appointed guardian shall inform a prosecutor.”
Pursuant to 59812,
“§ 1 The court-appointed guardian, in carrying out the removal of [a minor], shall be especially careful and shall do everything to ensure that the well-being of the child is not damaged and that [he or she] does not sustain physical or moral harm. If necessary, the guardian shall request the assistance of the social services or another institution tasked with this function.
§ 2 If the well-being of [a minor] would be placed at risk as a result of the removal, the guardian shall stop the enforcement of the order until the risk is over, unless by stopping the enforcement, the person would be placed at greater risk.”
38. Article 211 of the 1997 Criminal Code (Kodeks Karny) provides as follows:
“Whoever, contrary to the will of the person having care or supervision, abducts or detains a minor under fifteen years of age or a person who is helpless by reason of his mental or physical condition, shall be liable to a custodial penalty of up to three years.”
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 8


ITEMID: 001-98395
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: AZE
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2010
DOCNAME: CASE OF GULMAMMADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - award
JUDGES: Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens
TEXT: 5. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Baku.
6. On 25 February 1998 the applicant was issued with an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) for a flat in a recently constructed residential building in Baku on the basis of an order of the Baku City Executive Authority of 19 February 1998.
7. At the same time, the applicant became aware that the flat had been occupied by H. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Lachin, a region under the occupation of the Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over NagornoKarabakh.
8. According to the applicant, despite numerous demands, H. refused to vacate the flat, pointing out that he was an IDP and had no other place to live.
9. On an unspecified date in 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of H. and his family from the flat.
10. On 20 April 1998 the Yasamal District Court granted the applicant's claim and ordered that H. and his family be evicted from the flat. The court held that the applicant was the sole lawful tenant of the flat on the basis of the occupancy voucher of 25 February 1998 and therefore that the flat was being unlawfully occupied by H. and his family.
11. No appeals were filed against this judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, it became enforceable within ten days of its delivery. However, H. and his family refused to comply with the judgment and, despite the applicant's complaints to various authorities, it was not enforced.
12. On an unspecified date in 2006, the applicant and a group of other persons who were in the same situation lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court complaining that the Yasamal District Department of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers (“the Department of Enforcement Officers”) had not taken measures to enforce the judgments.
13. On 27 December 2006 the Yasamal District Court dismissed that complaint as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed against this judgment. On 2 May 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance court's judgment and delivered a new judgment on the merits in the applicant's favour. The Court of Appeal held that the Department of Enforcement Officers' inaction had been unlawful and that the judgment of 20 April 1998 should be enforced. Following a cassation appeal of H. and other persons against this judgment, by a decision of 18 September 2007, the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remitted the case to the latter court for a new examination. It appears from the case file that the proceedings are still pending before the Court of Appeal.
14. On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicant lodged an action against the State Committee on deals of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons, the Ministry of Finance and other authorities, seeking compensation for non-enforcement of the judgment of 20 April 1998. On 7 May 2008 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 7 July 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal and on 10 November 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court's judgment.
15. On 4 July 2007 H. lodged a request with the Yasamal District Court asking for postponement of the execution of the judgment of 20 April 1998. He alleged that, as he was an IDP, he had no other place to live but the flat in question.
16. On 10 July 2007 the Yasamal District Court granted H.'s request and ordered the postponement of the execution of the judgment of 20 April 1998 until H. could move to one of the houses recently constructed for temporary settlement of IDPs. The court relied on the Presidential Order of 1 July 2004 on Approval of the State Programme for Improvement of Living Conditions and Increase of Employment of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (“the Presidential Order of 1 July 2004”), according to which the relevant State organs were instructed that until the return of the IDPs to their native lands or until their temporary settlement in new houses, IDPs should not be evicted from public apartments, flats, lands and other premises, regardless of ownership, they had settled in between 1992 and 1998. Following a series of appeals by the applicant, on 2 September 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance court's decision and remitted the case to the lower court for a new examination.
17. It appears from the case file that following a series of the proceedings on 21 January 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the decision on postponement of the execution of the judgment of 20 April 1998 and that the proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Court.
18. Azerbaijani citizens are entitled to obtain the right of use of apartments owned by the State or other public bodies under the terms of a tenancy agreement (Articles 10 and 28). A decision to grant an apartment is implemented by way of issuing the citizen with an occupancy voucher (yaşayış sahəsi orderi) from the local executive authority (Article 48). The voucher serves as the sole legal basis for taking possession of the apartment designated therein (Article 48) and for concluding a tenancy agreement (yaşayış sahəsini icarə müqaviləsi) between the tenant and the housing maintenance authority (Article 51). The right of use of apartments is granted for an indefinite term (Article 10).
19. Individuals residing, pursuant to a tenancy agreement, in apartments owned by the State and other public bodies have a right to transfer those apartments into their private ownership (Article 1). Such privatisation is voluntary and free of charge (Article 2). The right to privatise a State-owned apartment free of charge may be exercised only once (Article 7).
20. IDPs are defined as “persons displaced from their places of permanent residence in the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan to other places within the territory of the country as a result of foreign military aggression, occupation of certain territories or continuous gunfire” (Article 2). The IDPs may be allowed to temporarily settle on their own only if the rights and lawful interests of other persons are not infringed. Otherwise, the relevant executive authority must ensure that the internally displaced persons are resettled in other accommodation (Article 5).
21. Article 4 of the IDP Settlement Regulations provides as follows:
“In order to prevent the eviction of internally displaced persons from dwellings in which they settled between 1992 and 1994, the legal force of the occupancy vouchers issued by the relevant authorities to individual citizens in respect of those dwellings shall be temporarily suspended...”
22. Article 4 of the IDP Resettlement Regulations provides as follows:
“In cases where the temporary settling of internally displaced persons breaches the housing rights of other individuals, the former must be provided with other suitable accommodation”
23. In the order, inter alia, the relevant state organs of the Republic of Azerbaijan are instructed that until the return of the IDPs to their native lands or until their temporary settlement in new houses, IDPs should not be evicted from public apartments, flats, land and other premises, regardless of ownership, they had settled in between 1992 and 1998.
24. A judge examining a civil case may, at the request of a party to the case, decide to postpone or suspend the execution of the judgment or change the manner of its execution because of the parties' property situation or other circumstances (Article 231).
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1