ITEMID: 001-75219
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2006
DOCNAME: HIZLI v. TURKEY
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
TEXT: The applicants, whose names appear in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr M.A. Kırdök, Mr Özcan Kılıç and Mr Hasan Kemal Elban, lawyers practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Kızılveren, a hamlet of the Hanuşağı village in the district of Ovacık in Tunceli, where he owns property.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Kızılveren on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık, complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council in Ovacık decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 22 March 2000 and 16 August 2001 the applicant filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Istanbul for submission to the Governor’s office in Tunceli and requested permission to return to his hamlet. He received no response to his petitions within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Kızılveren, a hamlet of the Hanuşağı village in the district of Ovacık in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in Kızılveren bear his father’s name.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Kızılveren on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On an unspecified date the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 31 October 2001 the State Emergency Department of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until 1994 the applicants lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where they own property. It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicants used in Karataş bear the names of
Hüseyin Lazım and Hüseyin Levazım.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their families then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
Hüseyin Lazım and Nazım Lazım lodged petitions with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık on 6 October 1994 and on 10 October 1994 respectively complaining about the burning down of their house by security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-files to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Ovacık Administrative Council decided not to conduct an investigation into their allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 17 October 1994 Ağa Lazım filed a petition with the District Governor’s office requesting alternative residence. He received no response to his petition.
On an unspecified date Ağa Lazım filed a petition with the Prime Minister’s office requesting permission to return to his village.
On 4 March 1999 he filed a further petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 5 April 1999 the Prime Minister’s office sent the following reply to him:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been transmitted to the Ministry of Interior for examination.”
On 14 June 1999 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to Ağa Lazım:
“... The struggle against terrorism in our region has been continuing intensively and positive result is being achieved.
Our government has been working on the solutions to the problems you have mentioned in your petition and you will be informed by the District Governor’s office when it is possible to return to the villages...”
On 17 September 1999 Ağa Lazım, Ahmet Lazım and Hüseyin Lazım lodged a petition with the Ministry of the Interior requesting alternative residence and expropriation of their property in Karataş.
On 12 November 1999 the Governor’s office in Tunceli refused the applicants’ requests stating:
“When the villages are secure and suitable for residence, you can return and reside in your village.
There is no legal ground for expropriation of your property.”
On an unspecified date Ağa Lazım filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 13 August 2001 the applicants filed a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village. They received no response to their petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until 1994 the applicants lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where they own property. It is to be noted that another person, Munzur Kol, appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their families then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 6 October 1994 Zabıt Kul lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office sent the case-file to the District Governor’s office in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council in Ovacık decided not to conduct investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 14 February 2000 Yusuf Kul filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following response to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 13 August 2001 the applicants filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village. They received no response to their petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 6 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council in Ovacık decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 14 February 2000 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Istanbul to be referred to the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 13 August 2001 the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village. He received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicants lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where they own property. It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicants used in Karataş bear the names of Ali Boztaş, Selvi Boztaş and Şemsi Boztaş.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their families then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
Ali Boztaş, Alettin Boztaş and Mazlum Boztaş lodged petitions with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık on 6 October 1994, 7 October 1994 and 10 October 1994 respectively complaining about the burning down of their houses by the security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office issued decisions of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-files to the Ovacık Administrative Council.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council in Ovacık decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicants’ allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 14 February 2000 Mazlum Boztaş filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following response to him:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 13 August 2001 the applicants filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village. They received no response to their petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicants lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where they own property. It is to be noted that another person, Bıra Kırmızıtaş, appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their families then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
Sabri Kırmızıtaş and Müslüm Kırmızıtaş’ wife lodged petitions with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık on 6 October 1994 and on 13 October 1994 respectively complaining about the burning down of their house by security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Ovacık Administrative Council decided not to conduct an investigation into their allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On an unspecified date Sabri Kırmızıtaş and Teslim Kırmızıtaş filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village.
On 14 February 2000 Nazmi Kırmızıtaş, Müslüm Kırmızıtaş and Nihat Kırmızıtaş filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following reply to the applicants:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 13 August 2001 the applicants filed further petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village.
They received no response to their petitions within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicants lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district, in Tunceli, where they own property. It is to be noted that other persons with the family name “Kırmızıtaş” appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their families then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 6 October 1994 Halit Kırmızıtaş, lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces.
On an unspecified date, the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Ovacik Administrative Council decided not to conduct an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 14 February 2000 Halit Kırmızıtaş a filed petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 13 August 2001 the applicants filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village. They received no response to their petitions within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where she owns property. It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in Karataş bear her father’s name
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 7 September 1999 the applicant filed a petition with the Ministry of Interior requesting permission to return to her village.
On 12 November 1999 the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following reply to the applicant:
“... The struggle against terrorism in our region has been continuing intensively and positive result is being achieved.
Our government has been working on the solutions to the problems you have mentioned in your petition and you will be informed by the District Governor’s office when it is possible to return to the villages...”
On an unspecified date, the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to her village.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 27 August 2001 the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to her village. She received no response to her petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until 1994 the applicants lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where they own property. It is to be noted that İbrahim Karataş and another person, Bıra Karataş, appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their families then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
İbrahim Karataş and Elif Karataş’s husband, Bıra Karataş, lodged petitions with the Public Prosecutor’s office on 6 October 1994 and on 10 October 1994 in Ovacık respectively complaining about the burning down of their house by the security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-files to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council in Ovacık decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicants’ allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 8 March 1999 Cengiz Karataş and İbrahim Karataş filed petitions with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to their village.
On 14 June 1999 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to the applicants:
“... The struggle against terrorism in our region has been continuing intensively and positive result is being achieved.
Our government has been working on the solutions to the problems you have mentioned in your petition and you will be informed by the District Governor’s office when it is possible to return to the villages...”
On 7 September 1999 İbrahim Karataş filed a petition with the Ministry of Interior requesting permission to return to his village.
On 18 October 1999 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to him:
“... The struggle against terrorism in our region has been continuing intensively and positive result is being achieved.
Our government has been working on the solutions to the problems you have mentioned in your petition and you will be informed by the District Governor’s office when it is possible to return to the villages...”
On 13 August 2001 Nurettin Karataş, Elif Karataş and Cengiz Karataş filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village. They received no response to their petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
On 24 August 2001 and 27 August 2001 Halil Karataş and İbrahim Karataş respectively filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village. They received no response to their petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicants lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district, in Tunceli, where they own property. It is to be noted that the title deeds of the property submitted to the Court bear the name of “Hüseyin Elmas”, the husband of Saher Elmas, the father of Kerem Elmas and the father-in-law of Nuray Elmas.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their families then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 6 October 1994 Nuray Elmas and Hüseyin Elmas lodged petitions with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of their house by security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-files to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Ovacık Administrative Council decided not to conduct an investigation into their allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 14 February 2000 Saher Elmas and Nuray Elmas filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following reply to the applicants:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 10 August 2001 Nuray Elmas filed a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to her village. She received no response to her petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
On 13 August 2001 Saher Elmas and Kerem Elmas filed further petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village. They received no response to their petitions within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district, in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that other person, Hamo Elmas, appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 6 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Ovacik Administrative Council decided not to conduct an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 13 August 2001 the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
He received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October1994 the applicant lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 10 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council in Ovacık decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 14 February 2000 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 13 August 2001 the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village. He received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate to the Court attesting his ownership of the property in Karataş.
On 14 February 2000 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following response to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 14 August 2001 the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
He received no response to their petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district, in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that other persons, Mehmet Boztaş and Gazi Boztaş, appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 6 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 14 February 2000 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following response to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 10 August 2001 the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village. He received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicants lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district, in Tunceli, where they own property. It is to be noted that Mahmut Bozoğlu appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their families then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 6 October 1994 Seydo Bozoğlu and Aziz Bozoğlu lodged petitions with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of their houses by security forces.
On 10 October 1994 Mahmut Bozoğlu, lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent letters to the applicants stating that there would not be an investigation into their allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 14 February 2000 the Yakup Bozoğlu and Seydo Bozoğlu filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following response to the applicants:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 13 August 2001 the applicants filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village. They received no response to their petitions within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicants lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district, in Tunceli, where they own property. It is to be noted that other persons with the family name “Aktaş” appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their families then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 4 November 1994 Sait Aktaş filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting an alternative residence. He received no response to his petition.
On 10 October 1994 Hüseyin Aktaş lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 17 September 1999 Sait Aktaş filed petitions with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık and the Ministry of Interior requesting alternative residence and expropriation of his property in Karataş.
On 20 October 1999 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to the applicant:
“... The struggle against terrorism in our region has been continuing intensively and positive result is being achieved.
Our government has been working on the solutions to the problems you have mentioned in your petition and you will be informed by the District Governor’s office when it is possible to return to the villages...”
On 21 October 1999 the Governor’s office in Tunceli refused Sait Aktaş’ request stating:
“When the villages are secure and suitable for residence, you can return and reside in your village.
There is no legal ground for expropriation of your property.”
On an unspecified date Sait Aktaş filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project.”
Hüseyin Aktaş and Sait Aktaş filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli on 13 and 24 August 2001 respectively requesting permission to return to their village. They received no response to their petitions within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district, in Tunceli. It is to be noted that the applicant submitted two documents dated 1972 and 1980, certifying the ownership of property.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 6 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 13 August 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village. He received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district, in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that applicant used in Karataş bear his father’s name.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 13 August 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village. He received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district, in Tunceli, where he owns property.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 17 August 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village. He received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicants lived in the Karataş village, in the Ovacık district, in Tunceli, where they own property. It is to be noted that Cafer Ağgül appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their families then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
Cafer and Hüseyin Ağgül, filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli on 13 and 15 August 2001 respectively, requesting permission to return to their village. They received no response to their petitions within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October1994 the applicant lived in the Yazıören village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Yazıören on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Ovacık where they currently live.
On 10 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council in Ovacık decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On an unspecified date the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 31 October 2001 the State Emergency Department of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October1994 the applicant lived in Elgazi village, in Ovacık district in Tunceli, where she owns property.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Elgazi on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Ovacık where they currently live.
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complained about the burning down of her house by the security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council in Ovacık decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 14 August 2001 the applicant applied to the State Emergency Department of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık and requested permission to return to her village. She was told by a police officer that her petition would not be registered and that she would not be replied. The applicant and four other witnesses drafted a note on this statement. This note is attached to the applicant’s application to the Court. The applicant did not submit any official document to the Court certifying the statement made by the police officer in question.
On 15 August 2001 the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to her village. She received no response to her petitions within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October1994 the applicant lived in Tepsili village, in Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Tepsili on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 20 August 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 31 October 2001 the State Emergency Department of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October1994 the applicant lived in the Ulukale village, in the Çemişgezek district in Tunceli, where he owns property.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Ulukale on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to the Toratlı village in Çemişgezek where they currently live.
The applicant filed petitions with the District Governor’s office in Çemişgezek and the Prime Minister’s office on 5 October 2001 and on 15 October 2001 respectively requesting permission to return to his village and compensation for the damages he suffered.
On 16 October 2001 the Prime Minister’s office informed the applicant that his petition had been transmitted to the Ministry of Interior.
On 13 November 2001 the District Governor’s office in Çemişgezek sent a letter to the applicant stating that the applicant had left his property voluntarily on account of disturbances in the region and had been granted financial aid by the District Collaboration and Solidarity Foundation (İlçe Sosyal Yardımlaşma ve Dayanışma Vakfı).
Until October1994 the applicant lived in Kızılveren, a hamlet of the Hanuşağı village in the district of Ovacık in Tunceli, where he owns property.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Kızılveren on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to the Hanuşağı village where they currently live.
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık and complained about the burning down of his house by the security forces.
On an unspecified date the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the office of the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 23 June 1995 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık decided not to conduct an investigation into applicant’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 22 November 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his hamlet.
On 18 January 2002 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October1994 the applicant lived in the Yazıören village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Yazıören on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 10 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council in Ovacık decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 5 October 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 31 October 2001 the State Emergency Department of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October1994 the applicant lived in the Yazıören village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Yazıören on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 10 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 1995 the Ovacık Administrative Council decided not to conduct an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 20 September 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 31 October 2001 the State of Emergency Department of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in the Cevizlidere village, in the Ovacık district, in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate attesting his ownership of property in Cevizlidere.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Cevizlidere on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 14 August 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village. He received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in the Cevizlidere village, in the Ovacık district, in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate attesting his ownership of property in Cevizlidere.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Cevizlidere on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On 14 August 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village. He received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in the Cevizlidere village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that the Mustafa Rakip appears be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Cevizlidere on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their families then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On an unspecified date Mustafa Rakip lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complained about the burning down of his house by security forces.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 23 June 1995 the Ovacık Administrative Council decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 22 May 1998 Mustafa Rakip filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in the district of Zeytinburnu in İstanbul to be referred to the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village. He received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
On 2 October 2001 Mustafa Rakip filed further petitions with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık, the Governor’s office in Tunceli and the Ministry of Interior requesting permission to return to his village.
On the same day he lodged a further complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 9 October 2001 the Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 25 October 2001 the State of Emergency Department of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Return to the Cevizlidere village is forbidden for security reasons. However, you can return and reside in Mollaaliler, Çakmaklı, Gözeler, Güneykonak, Havuzlu, Konaklar and Yoncalı villages.
Furthermore your petition will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 31 October 2001 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 18 January 2002 Selim Rakip filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 20 January 2002 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in the Cevizlidere village, in the Ovacık district in Tunceli where they own property. It is to be noted that İbiş Topuz, Hamza Topuz and other persons with the family name “Topuz” appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Cevizlidere on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their families then moved to Istanbul where they currently live.
On unspecified dates Haydar Topuz and Hamza Topuz lodged petitions with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of their houses by security forces.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case-files to the Administrative Council in Ovacık.
On 23 June 1995 the Ovacık Administrative Council decided not to conduct an investigation into their allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
Hamza Topuz and İbiş Topuz, filed petitions with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık on 22 August 2001 and on 25 August 2001 respectively, requesting permission to return to their village. They received no response to their petitions within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
On 24 September 2001 Haydar Topuz and İbiş Topuz filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to their village. They received no response to their petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
The official records indicated that the inhabitants of Hanuşağı, Ulukale, Tepsili, Elgazi, Karataş, Yazıören and Cevizlidere had evacuated their village on account of intense terrorist activities in the region and threats issued by the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) terrorist organisation against the villagers. The security forces had not forced the applicants to leave their village.
Currently there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages. Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and regaining their activities in their villages. In this connection, in a letter of 15 October 2002 the District Governor of Ovacık informed the applicants that they could return to their villages and resume their economic activities if they wished. He further noted that all villages were open for re-settlement and that the authorities had been carrying out maintenance work to repair the infrastructure of the villages in the region.
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 attained approximately 170,000. A further 800 persons, whose applications were pending before the Court, had also applied to the compensation commissions. Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained.
A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the Court’s decision of İçyer v. Turkey (no. 18888/02, §§ 44-54, 12 January 2006) and in its judgment of Doğan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 88038811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, §§ 31-35, ECHR 2004-VI).


ITEMID: 001-21917
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: FIN
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2001
DOCNAME: T.K. v. FINLAND
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Georg Ress
TEXT: The applicant is a Finnish citizen, born in 1960 and resident in Haparanda (Sweden). She is represented by Ms Anu Suomela of the Association for Family Rights in Finland (Perheen Suojelun Keskusliitto PESUE r.y.). The respondent Government are represented by Mr Arto Kosonen, Director in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a mother of four. Her oldest daughter A., born in 1983, was placed in public care from September 1985 to June 1987 on account of the applicant’s mental problems. The care was terminated after sole custody of A. had been granted to her father S.
At the beginning of the events of relevance to the application, the applicant’s sons N. and J., born in 1987 and 1991 respectively, lived with the applicant and her partner R. N.’s father is P. and J.’s father is R.
Between February and April 1993 the Social Welfare Office of Tornio, having received an indication under the Child Welfare Act (lastensuojelulaki, barnskyddslag 683/1983), on several occasions attempted to interview the applicant and R. and to verify their home conditions. As the applicant refused social officials access into her home and refused to allow N. and J. to undergo expert examinations, the Social Welfare and Health Board (sosiaali- ja terveyslautakunta, social- och hälsovårdsnämnden), on 12 May 1993, decided to place them in public care pursuant to section 16 of the Child Welfare Act.
The Board considered that the applicant was suffering from mental problems which had taken the form of “deviating behaviour” and difficulties in her personal relations. For over a year the Board had received information about the family which had given rise to concerns. The applicant had been “abandoning” J., stating that he was not her son but R.’s. She had also been threatening J. and was suspected of not feeding him properly. Because of her strong personality the whole responsibility for the children’s upbringing had been placed on her. She and R. had not been co-operating with the social authorities. A home helper had only managed to control to some extent “the chaos” in their home. They had turned down an offer to place J. in a day care centre and had brought N. to day care only irregularly. N.’s short-term stay in a foster home with the applicant’s consent had not been appropriate, since that home had been located in the same town as the applicant’s home. The applicant had also taken N. home before his planned three-month stay had come to an end. The Board expressed the hope that the applicant would seek treatment.
According to the applicant, the information on which the Board’s findings were based had not been submitted by persons qualified to assess her mental health. Two opinions were submitted by physicians who had allegedly never examined her. Some opinions were allegedly based on information provided by a social worker without the applicant’s knowledge and consent. A further opinion was submitted by an official of the Board who had not examined those involved either.
The care orders were not enforced immediately. The applicant and R. appealed to the County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) of Lapland.
At the relevant time the applicant had sole custody of N., who was spending his summer holidays with his father P. in Tampere. The social authorities told P. not to return N. to the applicant after the holidays. Thereafter his public care was implemented in his father’s home.
On 3 September 1993 the County Administrative Court, without holding an oral hearing, rejected the applicant’s and R.’s appeal against the care orders. They appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen).
On 16 September 1993 J. was forcibly removed from the applicant’s arms in their home with a view to implementing the care order. Following an observation period in a hospital J. was placed in the SOS Children’s Village at Yli-Tornio. The applicant’s complaint about the enforcement manner did not lead to charges being brought by the Public Prosecutor.
On 12 October 1993, the applicant and R. requested the Social Welfare and Health Board to revoke the public care orders. This was refused on 17 November 1993. On 11 November 1994 the County Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal without holding an oral hearing. She did not appeal further to the Supreme Administrative Court.
In a decision of 21 January 1994 a social welfare officer refused to provide the applicant with a copy of her client records, since they also contained information concerning third persons. The official noted that the applicant’s counsel had studied the records in the Social Welfare Office. The official scheduled a further appointment when the applicant could read the records in the Office.
On 2 March 1994 the Social Welfare and Health Board apparently ordered that the documents in question could be released to the applicant as the information relating to third persons had been deleted.
On 30 March 1994 the Social Welfare and Health Board adopted a care plan for J. It further rejected the applicant’s request for access to documents relating to her daughter A.’s taking into care in 1985, since that material was in the possession of the social authorities in Mäntsälä, which the applicant could petition directly. In her appeal the applicant, inter alia, questioned the continued public care of the children and the collection of information supporting such care. Her appeal was rejected by the County Administrative Court on 11 November 1994 but the court did afford her an opportunity to study the documents relating to her daughter A.’s taking into care in 1985. The applicant did not appeal further in so far as this was possible (with the exception of the terms of the care plan).
Meanwhile, when returning home in August or September 1994 a few days before the applicant was about to give birth to her fourth child she saw an ambulance waiting for her in her yard. Expecting to be placed in compulsory psychiatric care, she had her partner R. drive her to Sweden, where she gave birth on 4 September 1994. She returned to Finland shortly thereafter but later moved back to Sweden.
On 6 October 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the County Administrative Court’s decision of 3 September 1993 after having obtained written observations from the Social Welfare Board. The applicant was also able to submit a rejoinder
At the Social Welfare Board’s request the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Tampere, on 29 June 1995, transferred the custody of N. from the applicant to N.’s father P. The applicant did not attend the court hearing, though duly summoned.
A further request by the applicant to have the public care orders concerning N. and J. revoked, alternatively to have the access restrictions alleviated, was rejected by the Social Welfare and Health Board on 4 October 1995. Her appeal was rejected by the County Administrative Court on 8 March 1996 after an oral hearing where R. was also heard. The court noted the applicant’s lack of co-operation which had rendered it impossible for the social authorities to ascertain the alleged improvement in the home conditions. Nor had any other evidence of such improvement been adduced. The County Administrative Court also upheld the care plan adopted by the Social Welfare and Health Board on 23 August 1995 in respect of J. It urged the Board to specify the support measures necessary for improving the home conditions, but this again required co-operation between the social authorities and J.’s parents (i.e. the applicant and R.).
The applicant apparently did not appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision to uphold the care order.
On 22 May 1996 the Social Welfare and Health Board terminated N.’s public care, noting that he was in the sole custody of his father P. As regards J., the Board noted that the applicant and R. had failed to show up to any of the recent meetings scheduled for discussing his care plan. On 28 May 1996 the number of meetings between J. and his parents and sister was reduced from one per week to one per month. R. was allowed one further monthly visit. This restriction was extended on 30 October 1996. Reference was made, inter alia, to the applicant’s threats against staff at the SOS Children’s Village (including a threat to blow up one employee’s car), her assault of a social welfare worker and her refusal to return A. to her father after a visit. Moreover, the applicant had failed to communicate the family’s new address to the authorities.
The relevant legislation is outlined in the Court’s judgment in K. and T. v. Finland ([GC], no. 25702/94, §§ 94-136, ECHR 2001). Those provisions of particular relevance to the present case are described below.
According to section 16 of the Child Welfare Act, the Social Welfare Board shall take a child into care and provide substitute care for him or her if (a) the child’s health or development is seriously endangered by lack of care or other conditions at home, or if the child seriously endangers his or her health and development by abuse of intoxicants, by committing an illegal act other than a minor offence, or by any other comparable behaviour, (b) the measures of assistance in open care are not appropriate or have proved to be inadequate; and (c) foster care is considered to be in the best interests of the child. Foster care shall be provided without delay where it is needed and is in the best interests of the child (section 9, subsection 2). The care order must be forwarded to the administrative court for approval if a party opposes it and in certain other circumstances (section 17, subsection 2).
If a child is in imminent danger for a reason stated in section 16 or is otherwise in need of an urgent care order and substitute care, the Social Welfare Board may take him or her into care without submitting the decision to the administrative court for approval (section 18). An emergency care order expires within 14 days of the decision unless a normal order under section 17 is requested during that period. Such an order must be made within 30 days, or on special grounds within 60 days of the emergency order.
The child’s custodians, biological parents and de facto carers shall be heard in respect of a proposed public care order and be notified of the decision taken (section 17, subsection 1, of the Child Welfare Act, as amended by Act no. 139/1990). The hearing procedure is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (hallintomenettelylaki, lag om förvaltningsförfarande 598/1982). Under section 15 of the said Act a party shall be afforded the opportunity to reply to any claims put forward by others as well as to any evidence that may affect a decision to be taken. The Administrative Procedure Act does not lay down any minimum period of time which a party shall have at his or her disposal for preparing such a reply. A matter may be decided without a preceding hearing of a party inter alia if such a hearing would be manifestly unnecessary, would jeopardise the purpose of the decision or if the decision cannot be postponed. Section 17 of the Administrative Procedure Act requires that the competent authority duly investigate the matter before it and ensure the equality of the parties.
According to section 47 of the Social Welfare Act (sosiaalihuoltolaki, socialvårdslag 710/1982), a decision made by the Social Welfare Board is enforceable regardless of an appeal (a) if the decision requires immediate implementation; (b) if, for reasons due to the arrangement of social welfare, the enforcement of the decision cannot be delayed; or (c) when the Social Welfare Board has ordered the decision to be enforced at once.
According to section 24 of the Child Welfare Act, a child who is being cared for outside his or her original home shall be ensured those important, continuous and secure human relations which are important for his or her development. The child is entitled to meet his or her parents and other close persons and to keep in touch with them (subsection 1). The Social Welfare Board shall support and facilitate the child’s contacts with his or her parents and other close persons (subsection 2).
According to section 25 of the Child Welfare Act and section 9 of the Child Welfare Decree, the Social Welfare Board or the director of a children’s home may restrict the right of access of a child in foster care to its parents or other persons close to him or her if (a) such access clearly endangers the development or safety of the child; or if (b) such a restriction is necessary for the safety or security of the parents, or the children or staff in the children’s home. The restriction shall be limited in time. It shall mention the persons whose rights are being restricted, the kind of contacts concerned by the restriction and the extent of the restriction.
The care plan to be drawn up in respect of a child in public care shall mention (a) the purpose and objectives of the placement; (b) what kind of special support will be organised for the child, for the persons in charge of the child’s care and upbringing and for the child’s parents; (c) how the child’s right of access to its parents and other persons close to the child will be organised; and (d) how after-care is going to be organised. According to section 4 of the Child Welfare Decree, the care plan shall be elaborated in co-operation with those involved.
Under the Social Welfare Act (sosiaalihuoltolaki, socialvårdslag 710/1982) social welfare officials may not, without the consent of the person concerned or that of, for instance, his or her custodian, disclose personal and family information obtained in the performance of their duties. This duty of confidentiality does not prevent officials from disclosing information to those entitled to obtain it for the performance of their official duties (section 57). Thus the social welfare authorities are entitled to obtain, from a public body such as a municipal care centre, any material required for the performance of their duties (section 56). The confidentiality of patient records, as stipulated in the Act on the Status and Rights of Patients (laki potilaan asemasta ja oikeuksista, lagen om patientens ställning och rättigheter 785/1992), may thereby be waived (section 13 of the said Act). A refusal to disclose information requested under section 56 of the Social Welfare Act constitutes an offence (section 58).
The Child Welfare Act obligates the authorities to provide social welfare authorities with information not only in accordance with Section 56 of the Social Welfare Act but also actively and on their own initiative. According to section 40 of the Child Welfare Act, certain officials are under a duty to notify the social authorities immediately whenever a child appears to be in evident need of child welfare measures. Others may also notify the Social Welfare Board of similar suspicions.


ITEMID: 001-58137
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: ESP
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 1998
DOCNAME: CASE OF EDIFICACIONES MARCH GALLEGO S.A. v. SPAIN
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: No violation of Art. 6-1
JUDGES: C. Russo
TEXT: 7. Edificaciones March Gallego S.A. is a public limited company set up in 1985 and its registered office is at Benidorm (Alicante). Mr Federico March Olmos was its sole director.
8. On 11 December 1989 proceedings for payment (juicio ejecutivo cambiario) were brought against the applicant company and, as guarantor, Mr March in Valencia Court of First Instance no. 10 by another company, Manuel Codesido Marí S.L., which claimed the sum of 4,367,842 pesetas on a bill of exchange. The court registry was instructed to inform the defendants that in default of payment their property would be seized and that they could apply to have the proceedings set aside.
9. As the applicant company did not have its registered office at the address indicated on the bill of exchange, the plaintiff company requested the court on 21 February 1990 to order, under Articles 1444 and 1460 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the applicant company’s property should be seized without any prior demand for payment and to summon the company to appear by edictos (see paragraph 24 below).
10. On 26 February 1990 Mr March appeared before the Court of First Instance, which assessed what part of his property could be seized and gave him three days in which to indicate that he intended to apply to have the proceedings set aside, if he so wished (see paragraph 24 below). Notice of the proceedings and of the property to be seized was served on Mr March’s wife.
11. On 1 March 1990 Edificaciones March Gallego S.A. appeared before the same court and declared their intention of applying to have the proceedings against the company set aside. The document giving notice of that intention, which was submitted by the company’s lawyer (procurador), Mrs I., stated “… on 26 February last the summons and copies of the application for proceedings for payment were handed to my client…”.
12. On 6 March 1990 the applicant company was given four days by the court to make its submissions, adduce evidence and apply to set aside, in accordance with Article 1463 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 24 below). The court noted that Mr March had not appeared within the three-day period he had been granted on 26 February 1990 and declared that he was in default.
13. On 9 March 1990 Mrs I., acting on behalf of Mr March in accordance with “the authority to act in the file of the proceedings” formally applied to have the proceedings in question set aside, within the four-day period granted to the applicant company by the court. In the application to set aside the court was requested to declare that the bill of exchange in question was void since, in view of the amount for which it had been drawn up, an insufficient amount had been paid in compulsory tax on bills of exchange.
14. On 15 March 1990 the court held that the application to set aside was inadmissible (se tuvo por no formulada) on the following grounds:
“1. Mr Federico March Olmos did not appear timeously or comply with formal requirements;
2. the lawyer [who submitted the application to set aside] had not received authority to act from the aforementioned person [Mr March] or, at the very least, that authority had not been formally submitted and is not in the file;
3. the only party which gave notice of intention to apply to set aside within the prescribed time is Edificaciones March Gallego S.A., who had duly authorised Mrs [I.], in accordance with requirements…;
4. the debtors are two persons that can be clearly distinguished: on the one hand, a company, Edificaciones March Gallego S.A., and, on the other, a natural person, Mr Federico March Olmos…”
It was also stated in the decision (providencia) that it was unnecessary to summon the applicant company by edictos, as Manuel Codesido Marí S.L. had requested on 21 February 1990 since, although the applicant company did not have its registered office at the address indicated, it had appeared timeously in accordance with Article 261 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was noted in the decision that Mr March had not appeared (see paragraph 12 above), unlike the applicant company, which, however, had not formally applied to set aside (see paragraph 13 above) in accordance with Articles 1462 and 1463 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 24 below).
15. On 20 March 1990 the applicant company’s lawyer made a reposición application to the Court of First Instance, arguing that the application to set aside had been made on behalf of the company, that the fact that Mr March’s name appeared in the application had been merely a typing error and that it was clear that the intention had been to apply to set aside on behalf of the applicant company and not of Mr March.
16. In a decision (auto) of 30 March 1990 the court upheld the impugned decision.
17. On 6 April 1990 the applicant company appealed. In a decision (auto) of 23 October 1991 the Valencia Audiencia provincial upheld the decision of 30 March 1990. The court stated that the mistake went to the applicant company’s and Mr March’s locus standi in that although the first name, “March”, was identical in both cases, the second was different, the application to set aside having been made in the name “March Olmos”, the name of the natural person, and not of “March Gallego”, the name of the company of which the natural person was the sole director.
18. In the meantime, on 9 June 1990, the Valencia Court of First Instance, having found that Mr March had not appeared and that Edificaciones March Gallego – who had not been summoned but who, having indicated in time their intention of applying to set aside, had been deemed to have appeared – had in the end not applied to set aside, ordered that the proceedings for payment of the bill of exchange should continue (sentencia de remate).
19. On 14 June 1990 the applicant company appealed against that judgment. On 23 October 1991 the Valencia Audiencia provincial dismissed the appeal on the ground that the applicant company’s application to set aside had been refused by Valencia Court of First Instance no. 10 on 30 March 1990.
20. On 21 November 1991 Edificaciones March Gallego and Mr March lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court on the basis of Article 24 § 1 of the Constitution (see paragraph 23 below), alleging that the courts’ refusal to rectify the clerical error in the application to set aside was a breach of fair procedure.
21. On 3 December 1991 the amount of the bill of exchange was paid to the plaintiff company.
22. On 19 December 1994 the Constitutional Court held, contrary to the opinion of its Crown Counsel’s office, that there had not been merely a rectifiable error in the identification of the persons who had applied to set aside but a want of diligence that could not be remedied and dismissed the applicant company’s appeal.
It pointed out, firstly, that as the right to bring an action and obtain a reasoned decision from the courts was subject to statutory requirements, the courts were bound to apply the rules of procedure in the light of the aim that had been sought to be achieved by the legislature, while avoiding both excessive formalism that would breach the fairness of procedure guaranteed by Article 24 of the Constitution and excessive flexibility such as would render nugatory the procedural requirements laid down in statutes.
The court noted the difference in legal status between the applicant company (a legal person) and Mr Federico March Olmos (a natural person), and said:
“The difference in legal status between the parties concerned – one of them a legal person and a public limited company (Edificaciones March Gallego S.A.) and the other a natural person (Mr Federico March Olmos) –, the obvious identity or divergence of their interests due to the similarity of their names and the fact that Mr Federico March Olmos, as sole director of the company, had given its statutory representatives authority to act – as was noted in the decision of 15 March 1990 – do not justify holding, as the interested parties maintained, that there was an error in the identification of the persons that had formally applied to set aside. On the other hand, those factors do justify finding, like the ordinary courts, that there was a want of diligence in the proceedings that cannot be remedied; nor must it be overlooked that it would have to be remedied after [the procedure of formally submitting] the application to set aside had been completed. That fact makes it impossible for the Court to hold that there was merely an irregularity, omission or imperfection that could be cured by supplying the missing element. In the instant case, apart from the fact that the omission in question concerned an essential element of the act and related to the person carrying it out, it would have to be cured outside the mandatory time-limits laid down for formally submitting an application to set aside (Article 1463 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in conjunction with section 241 of the Judicature Act), and in such cases of late rectification of an essential element of a procedural step subject to mandatory time-limits, this Court has held that failure to rectify [the error] does not infringe the right to effective protection by the courts.”
23. Article 24 § 1 of the Constitution provides:
“Everyone has the right to effective protection by the courts in the exercise of his rights and his legitimate interests, and in no circumstances may there be any denial of defence rights.”
24. The relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are the following:
“Any service of process or summons that does not comply with the requirements of this section [of this code] shall be invalid.
However, where the person on whom service is being effected or the summons served learns of it during the proceedings, the service of process shall be fully effective as if it had been carried out as prescribed by law.
…”
“If the debtor’s permanent address or place of residence is unknown, the Court may decide, on an application by the plaintiff, to order a seizure without giving notice to pay…”
“If the debtor’s permanent address or place of residence is unknown, the debtor shall be summoned by edictos…”
[In the procedure of summons by edictos the summons is posted up on the notice-board of the judicial body concerned and, where appropriate, published in the Official Gazette and in the main newspapers of the province (Article 269 of the Code of Civil Procedure).]
“Within a period that may not be extended of three working days from the day following the summons the debtor may apply to set aside the proceedings for payment by appearing in court assisted by a lawyer [procurador].”
“At the end of the period referred to in the foregoing two Articles, a debtor who has not appeared, assisted by a lawyer, shall be deemed in default and the proceedings shall follow their course without it being necessary to summon him again or to send him any notifications other than those provided for in law…”
“If, within the time laid down and having satisfied the formal requirements, the debtor gives notice of his intention to apply to set aside, he shall be deemed to be making such an application and must formally submit his application to set aside within a period of four days, which cannot be extended, and shall raise such defences and submit such evidence as he considers necessary…”
“Only the following objections shall be admissible in proceedings for payment:
…
All other objections that may be raised by a debtor shall be reserved for ordinary proceedings and shall not prevent delivery of the judgment in which payment is ordered [de remate].”
“Judgments delivered in proceedings for payment [juicio ejecutivo] shall not be final, the parties being entitled to bring ordinary proceedings relating to the same issue.”
25. The relevant provisions of the Judicature Act are the following:
“In accordance with the principle of effective protection laid down in Article 24 of the Constitution, the courts shall always rule on claims and may only dismiss them on the ground of a formal defect where that defect cannot be remedied, or at least not in accordance with the procedure laid down by law [for that purpose].”
“Procedural steps carried out after a time-limit shall only be annullable if that is permitted by the nature of the time-limit in question.”
“Manifest clerical errors and arithmetical errors shall be rectifiable at any time.”
NON_VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
NON_VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-111981
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: UKR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2012
DOCNAME: CASE OF GLOBA v. UKRAINE
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
JUDGES: Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger
TEXT: 5. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kulikove, Poltava Region.
6. At the material time the applicant was employed by a collective agricultural enterprise in which the State held no shares. The enterprise had its own housing which was allocated to its workers or members. Since there was no vacant housing for the applicant he was placed first in the waiting list. When a flat became available, by a decision of the enterprise of 18 August 1995 two private individuals who were behind the applicant in the waiting list were offered the tenancy of the flat. On the same date and based on this decision, the Kulykove Town Council (“the Town Council”) issued a tenancy authorisation (ордер на житлове приміщення) in the name of the private persons in respect of the flat.
7. In November 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Leninskyy District Court, Poltava (“the Leninsky Court”) against the Town Council, the private individuals and the enterprise. He sought revocation of the tenancy allocation.
8. On 10 March 1999 the Leninsky Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part, finding that he had the right to the tenancy of the flat since, according to the internal regulations of the enterprise and national law, he had priority over private individuals for occupation of the flat. The court ordered the private individuals to be evicted from the flat and the enterprise to allocate the flat to the applicant and to find other housing for the two private individuals to be evicted. On 8 April 1999 the Poltava Regional Court (since June 2001 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, “the Court of Appeal”) upheld the judgment of 10 March 1999 and it became final.
9. On 26 January 2000 the applicant requested the Prosecutor General to intervene by lodging an appeal for supervisory review (protest) against the court decisions. On 4 February 2000 the Presidium of the Court of Appeal, acting on the protest, changed part of the lower courts’ decisions in respect of the size of the housing to be provided to the private individuals.
10. On 12 December 2000 the Leninsky Court rejected the applicant’s request for interpretation of the judgment of 10 March 1999. The applicant did not appeal.
11. Having twice refused to open enforcement proceedings due to shortcomings in the writs of execution of the judgment of 10 March 1999, the Poltava Oktiabrsky District Bailiffs’ Service (“the bailiffs”) eventually opened the proceedings on 8 February 2001. Subsequently, the bailiffs several times requested the Leninsky Court to clarify the judgment at issue as, from their point of view, it was not sufficiently clear for enforcement purposes.
12. On 4 September 2002 the Town Council decided to take over the property, including the housing of the enterprise, which had gone into liquidation in the meantime.
13. On 24 December 2002 the bailiffs, on the basis of this decision, replaced the debtor company with the Town Council and ordered the head of the Town Council to comply with the judgment. Subsequently, due to non-compliance with the judgment, the bailiffs twice fined the Head of the Town Council. The latter challenged these decisions before the Poltava Oktiabrsky District Court, which, on 1 October 2004, found the bailiffs’ decision lawful and reasoned, but quashed the imposed fines on the ground that the debtor had not complied with the judgment for lack of appropriate housing. The parties did not appeal.
14. In the meantime, on 29 September 2004, the Town Council had authorised the private individuals to privatise the flat in issue.
15. On 14 March 2005 the Leninsky Court rejected the requests by the bailiffs and the applicant for the manner of execution of the judgment to be changed. On 7 June 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision, finding that the bailiffs had failed to enforce the judgment by not attaching the flat, which had led to its privatisation, and by not taking any action against the Town Council. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on 4 April 2006.
16. On 16 February 2009 the Leninsky Court rejected the applicant’s request for the manner of execution of the judgment to be changed. It found that the judgment was not enforced because the occupants of the flat had in the meantime privatised it and the Town Council had no substitute housing whatsoever. The higher courts left the applicant’s appeals unexamined as the ruling of 16 February 2009 was not subject to appeal.
17. The flat at issue remains occupied by the private individuals. According to the Government, the applicant is now occupying another flat that the enterprise provided him with on an unspecified date. According to the applicant, he has not been offered any housing since 2000.
18. On 27 July 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Leninsky Court, alleging that when opening the enforcement proceedings the bailiffs had failed to attach the flat in issue. He requested the court to take measures in respect of the bailiffs so that they could enforce the judgment, and to lodge a claim on his behalf seeking revocation of the privatisation of the flat. On 11 January 2007 the court rejected the complaint, finding that the applicant’s requests for relief were without merit. It also found that the bailiffs had not taken all possible measures to ensure the implementation of the judgment when opening the enforcement proceedings, but that subsequently they looked for ways, and took measures, to implement it. On 6 March and 19 November 2007 respectively the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 11 January 2007.
19. By the bailiffs’ most recent decision, of 30 September 2008, the enforcement proceedings were discontinued, with the judgment of 10 March 1999 remaining unenforced. The applicant challenged this decision. On 4 November 2008 the Leninsky Court confirmed the decision, finding, in particular, that the bailiffs requested criminal prosecution of the Head of the Town Council and had no other option to enforce the judgement. On 11 December 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of 4 November 2008. The parties did not appeal on points of law.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1