ITEMID: 001-90585
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: SRB
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2009
DOCNAME: CASE OF CRNIŠANIN AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property
JUDGES: András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky
TEXT: 6. The applicants, Ms Mukadesa Crnišanin (“the first applicant”), Ms Arifa Hamidović (“the second applicant”), Ms Milodarka Kostić (“the third applicant”), and Ms Faza Paljevac (“the fourth applicant”) are all Serbian citizens who were born in 1953, 1957, 1951 and 1955, respectively, and currently live in the Municipality of Novi Pazar, Serbia.
7. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
8. On 24 March 1995 and 1 May 1996, respectively, the first and the second applicants, both employed with Raška Holding AD, on 1 August 1992, the third applicant employed with Trikotaza Raška DP (succeeded by Oktan-Pro), and on 1 January 1994 the fourth applicant employed with “Raška Holding - Raška pamučna predionica”, were all “placed” by their respective “socially-owned” employers on “compulsory” paid leave “until such time” when “normal production could be resumed” and the said companies’ business performance “improved sufficiently”.
9. Whilst on this leave, in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation, the applicants were entitled to a significantly reduced monthly income, as well as the payment of their pension, disability and other social security contributions.
10. Since the companies failed to fulfil these obligations, the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims before the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”).
11. On 11 July 2002 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her the monthly “paid leave benefits” (“naknada za vreme plaćenog odsustva”) due from 20 June 1998 to 31 December 2001, plus statutory interest.
12. This judgment became final in 2003 or early 2004.
13. On 27 March 2003 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 January 1999 to 18 February 2003, with statutory interest; and
ii. 6,500 Dinars for her legal costs.
14. This judgment became final on 22 April 2003.
15. On 30 October 2003 the Municipal Court again ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 18 February 2003 to October 2003 (37,924 Dinars in all), together with statutory interest;
ii. 11,643 Dinars for her legal costs; and
iii. the pension and disability insurance contributions (“doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje”) due for that period.
16. This judgment became final on 28 November 2003.
17. On 19 April 2004 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgments, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank account transfer or through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets.
18. On 6 May 2004 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.
19. On 21 May 2004 the Municipal Court provided the Central Bank (Narodna banka Srbije) with this order.
20. On 30 March 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 November 2003 to 30 March 2004 (25,408 Dinars in all), together with statutory interest;
ii. 4,200 Dinars for her legal costs; and
iii. the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for that period.
21. This judgment became final on 18 June 2004.
22. On 21 June 2004 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank account transfer or through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets.
23. On 8 July 2004 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.
24. On 14 July 2004 the Municipal Court provided the Central Bank with this order.
25. On 27 October 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from April to August 2004 (22,482 Dinars in all), together with statutory interest;
ii. 7,800 Dinars for her legal costs; and
iii. the pension, health and unemployment insurance contributions due from 20 June 1998 to 18 February 2003 and 1 April 2004 to 31 August 2004.
26. This judgment became final on 23 December 2004.
27. On 3 December 2004 and 14 January 2005 the applicant filed two separate requests for the enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank account transfer or through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets.
28. On 24 January 2005 and 22 February 2005, respectively, the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s requests and issued two enforcement orders.
29. On 25 March 2005 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 September 2004 to 1 March 2005 (37,268 Dinars in all), together with statutory interest;
ii. 9,750 Dinars for her legal costs; and
iii. the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for that period.
30. This judgment became final on 28 July 2005.
31. On 22 September 2005 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment (except for the costs awarded), proposing that it be carried out through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified immovable assets.
32. On 28 April 2006 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.
33. It would appear that the first applicant’s employer ultimately paid the various pension and other social insurance contributions awarded in the above judgments, but that the paid leave benefits, legal costs and statutory interest have yet to be enforced.
34. On 18 March 1999 and 14 April 1999, respectively, the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the second applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from May 1996 to June 1998 (4,760 Dinars in all), together with statutory interest;
ii. the pension and disability insurance contributions due for that period; and
iii. 600 Dinars for her legal costs.
35. On an unspecified date thereafter these judgments became final.
36. On 8 April 2003, 24 June 2003 and 28 January 2004, respectively, the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s enforcement requests and ordered that the above judgments be executed either by means of a bank account transfer or through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets.
37. On 17 July 2008 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings based on the relevant provisions of the Amendments and Additions to the Privatisation Act 2007 (see paragraphs 102-104 below).
38. On 30 April 2003 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the second applicant and ordered her employer to pay her the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 July 1998 to 31 May 2001, as well as those due from 1 June 2001 to 30 April 2003 (the latter amounting to 82,971 Dinars in all), together with statutory interest and another 6,500 Dinars for her legal costs.
39. This judgment became final on 5 June 2003.
40. On 5 June 2003 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets. On 23 January 2004 the applicant requested that enforcement also be attempted by means of a bank account transfer.
41. On 24 June 2003 and 28 January 2004, respectively, the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s enforcement requests and issued two separate orders.
42. In March 2004 some of the debtor’s movable assets were sold and a number of other creditors’ claims were settled. The applicant, however, received nothing in view of her low ranking on the list of creditors.
43. On 17 July 2008 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings based on the relevant provisions of the Amendments and Additions to the Privatisation Act 2007 (see paragraphs 102-104 below).
44. On 6 November 2003 and 31 May 2004, respectively, the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the second applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from May 2003 to October 2003, (27,824 Dinars in all), together with statutory interest;
ii. the pension and disability insurance contributions due for that period; and
iii. 7,800 Dinars for legal costs.
45. On an unspecified date thereafter these judgments became final.
46. On 4 March 2004 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgments, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank account transfer or through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets.
47. On 15 March 2004 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.
48. On 19 March 2004 the Municipal Court provided the Central Bank with this order.
49. Soon thereafter some of the debtor’s movable assets were sold and a number of other creditors’ claims were settled. The applicant, however, received nothing in view of her low ranking on the list of creditors.
50. On 24 February 2005 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the second applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from November 2003 to February 2005 (61,973 Dinars in all), together with statutory interest;
ii. the pension and disability insurance contributions due from 1 July 1998 to 30 April 2003 and 1 November 2003 to 24 February 2005; and
iii. 9,750 Dinars for legal costs.
51. On an unspecified date thereafter this judgment became final.
52. On 24 April 2005 and 29 July 2005, respectively, the applicant filed two separate requests for the enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank account transfer or through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets.
53. On 21 June 2005 and 26 September 2005 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s successive requests and issued two separate enforcement orders.
54. On 17 November 2006 and 13 March 2006, respectively, the Municipal Court provided the Central Bank with these orders.
55. On 23 September 1997 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the third applicant and ordered her employer to pay her the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 August 1992 to 20 June 1997 (8,089 Dinars in all), together with statutory interest as of 20 June 1997, and another 350 Dinars for legal costs.
56. This judgment became final on 16 February 1998.
57. On 28 April 1998 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out by means of a bank account transfer.
58. On 30 April 1998 the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order.
59. On 29 May 1998 the Municipal Court provided the Central Bank with this order.
60. On 13 March 2003 the applicant complained about the delay to the Municipal Court and proposed alternative enforcement through the auctioning of the debtor’s movable assets.
61. On 25 August 2003 the applicant urged the Municipal Court to consider her request of 13 March 2003.
62. On 7 October 2004 the Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the third applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 5 March 2000 to 5 March 2003, together with statutory interest;
ii. the pension and disability insurance contributions due from 21 June 1997 to 5 March 2003; and
iii. 23,400 Dinars for legal costs.
63. This judgment became final on 25 November 2004.
64. On 29 November 2004 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank account transfer or through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets.
65. On 6 December 2004 the Municipal Court accepted this request and issued an enforcement order.
66. On an unspecified date thereafter the Municipal Court provided the Central Bank with this order.
67. On 17 April 2006 the latter informed the former that certain information needed for the enforcement was missing.
68. On 20 June 2006 the applicant provided the Municipal Court with the information sought and on 26 June 2006 this information was forwarded to the Central Bank.
69. On 10 March 2005 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the third applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 5 March 2003 to 1 March 2005 (127,889 Dinars in all), together with statutory interest;
ii. the pension and disability insurance contributions due from 1 June 1992 to 20 June 1997 and 6 March 2003 to 18 November 2004; and
iii. 15,000 Dinars for legal costs.
70. This judgment became final on 4 October 2005.
71. On 11 October 2005 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank account transfer or through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets.
72. On 28 December 2005 the Municipal Court accepted this request and issued an enforcement order.
73. In early March 2006 the Municipal Court provided the Central Bank with this order, but by 9 March 2006 the latter informed the former that certain information needed for the enforcement was missing.
74. On 18 July 2008 the Municipal Court terminated enforcement of the pension and disability insurance contributions since the applicant had failed to cover the anticipated costs of a financial expert.
75. On 18 December 2007 the applicant was declared redundant.
76. On the same date she signed an agreement with the debtor concerning her salary arrears and taxes, as well as her other labour-related benefits and/or contributions. The agreement provided, inter alia, that:
i. all pension and disability insurance contributions due by 18 December 2007 shall be covered by the debtor within a period of six months;
ii. the applicant shall renounce her right to seek judicial enforcement of any final judgments rendered in her favour before 18 December 2007; and
iii. the applicant shall be paid 366,890 Dinars in accordance with the Government’s “social programme”.
77. It would appear that the applicant had received the said payment, but that the debtor has yet to cover the pension and disability insurance contributions in question.
78. On 22 December 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the fourth applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits (minimalnu zaradu) due from 1 August 2001 to 30 June 2004 (154,002 Dinars in all), plus statutory interest;
ii. 7,800 Dinars for her legal costs; and
iii. the social security contributions due from 1 January 1994 to 1 August 2004.
79. This judgment became final by 18 July 2005.
80. On 25 February 2005 and 29 July 2005, respectively, the applicant filed two separate requests for the enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank transfer or through the auctioning of the debtor’s movable and/or immovable assets.
81. On 11 April 2005 and 26 September 2005 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s requests and issued two separate enforcement orders.
82. On 26 April 2005 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the fourth applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 August 2004 to 31 March 2005 (50,512 Dinars in all), plus statutory interest;
ii. 9,750 Dinars for her legal costs; and
iii. the social security contributions due for that period.
83. This judgment became final by 26 May 2005.
84. On 5 October 2005 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank transfer or through the auctioning of the debtor’s movable and/or immovable assets.
85. On 27 December 2005 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.
86. On 30 March 2006 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the fourth applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 April 2005 to 31 December 2005 (64,456.60 Dinars in all), plus statutory interest; and
ii. the social security contributions due for that period.
87. On 30 March 2006 the Municipal Court again ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered her employer to pay her 4,500 Dinars for her legal costs incurred during the above proceedings.
88. Both decisions became final by 26 April 2006.
89. On 16 May 2006 the applicant filed a request for their enforcement, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank transfer or through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets.
90. On 19 May 2006 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.
91. On 6 March 2007 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the fourth applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 January 2006 to 1 June 2006 (38,640 Dinars in all), plus statutory interest;
ii. 11,700 Dinars for her legal costs; and
iii. the social security contributions due for that period.
92. This judgment became final by 23 May 2007.
93. On 29 May 2007 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank transfer or through the auctioning of the debtor’s movable assets.
94. On 1 June 2007 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.
95. On 2 November 2004 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the first, second and fourth applicants’ debtors, as part of the privatisation process. On 13 December 2006 this privatisation was stayed, but on 14 March 2007 it resumed.
96. As of November 2008, the first and second applicants’ debtor was still predominantly socially-owned, directly or indirectly through other companies, whilst the fourth applicant’s debtor was itself solely owned by the first and second applicants’ debtor. The third applicant’s debtor, however, having been privatised, was predominantly comprised of private capital.
97. On 30 November 2004 and 21 February 2005, respectively, the applicants’ lawyer sent two separate letters to the Ministry of Finance, stating, inter alia, that the companies at issue:
i. have, for the past ten years, deliberately avoided doing business through their official bank accounts;
ii. have instead, apparently, engaged in cash transactions or even the use of other, “secret”, bank accounts unknown to the tax authorities; and
iii. that, as a result, judicial enforcement by means of a bank account transfer had been rendered impossible.
The applicants’ lawyer concluded by requesting that urgent action be taken to secure the enforcement of the final judgments in question.
98. On 21 March 2005 the Ministry of Finance responded that the above letters had been duly considered but that, in view of the confidential nature of the information obtained, no details could be disclosed.
99. On 6 June 2005 the applicants’ lawyer sent another complaint to the Ministry of Finance, stating that the situation concerning the said bank accounts had remained unchanged.
100. Articles 19-20đ set out the details as regards the restructuring of companies about to be privatised. This restructuring, however, is optional and a company may be sold without having been restructured if the Privatisation Agency so decides.
101. Article 31 provides that a company whose restructuring commenced prior to 7 June 2005, as part of an ongoing privatisation, cannot be subjected to an enforcement procedure within one year of that date. If the decision to restructure a company, however, was not adopted prior to 7 June 2005, the relevant time limit shall be two years as of the subsequent adoption of a decision to this effect. Any ongoing enforcement proceedings shall be stayed while new enforcement proceedings shall not be instituted until the expiry of the above time-limits.
102. Articles 4 and 5 provide that the privatisation of all remaining socially-owned capital shall commence by 31 December 2008. Should this prove impossible, the companies in question shall be liquidated.
103. Article 10 provides, inter alia, that a company undergoing restructuring, as part of the privatisation process, cannot be subjected to an enforcement procedure until the conclusion of this process. Any ongoing enforcement proceedings shall be stayed.
104. These provisions entered into force in January 2008.
105. Other relevant domestic provisions are set out in the cases of R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia and EVT Company v. Serbia (nos. 2269/06, 3041/06, 3042/06, 3043/06, 3045/06 and 3046/06, §§ 57-76, 15 January 2008, as well as no. 3102/05, §§ 26 and 27, 21 June 2007, respectively).
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
P1
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: P1-1


ITEMID: 001-97240
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2010
DOCNAME: CASE OF ZALEVSKAYA v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 6;Violation of P1-1
JUDGES: Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens
TEXT: 4. The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Novoaltaysk.
5. On 3 July 2003 the Industrialniy District Court of Barnaul granted, in part, claims brought by a certain Z. against the applicant and, inter alia, recognised his title to a share in a flat owned by the applicant.
6. On 13 August 2003 the Altai Regional Court quashed the judgment of 3 July 2003 on the applicant's appeal and dismissed Z.'s claims. This appeal judgment became final and binding.
7. On 9 February 2004 the applicant sold the flat to a third person, S.
8. On 27 July 2004 Z. lodged an application for supervisory review of the case.
9. On 5 November 2004 a judge of the Altai Regional Court sent the case to its Presidium for consideration by way of supervisory review.
10. On 7 December 2004 the Presidium of the Altai Regional Court reassessed the evidence, quashed the appeal judgment of 13 August 2003 and upheld the judgment of 3 July 2003, granting Z.'s claims in part.
11. According to the applicant, neither she nor her lawyer attended the hearing due to the authorities' failure to notify them of its date and time.
12. The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure at the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Sobelin and Others (see Sobelin and Others v. Russia, nos. 30672/03, et seq., §§ 33-42, 3 May 2007).
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6


ITEMID: 001-67917
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2005
DOCNAME: CASE OF HALIS v. TURKEY
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 10;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
JUDGES: Nicolas Bratza
TEXT: 7. The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul.
8. The applicant worked as a journalist for the Turkish daily newspaper “Özgür Gündem”.
9. On 2 January 1994 “Özgür Gündem” published an article with the title “Four New Books by Zagros Publications”, written by the applicant. On the same day, the copies of the newspaper were confiscated by an order of the Istanbul State Security Court.
10. In the impugned article, the applicant reviewed four books written by four different authors who discussed problems related to Turkey's southeastern region. The first book reviewed in the article, “Tasfiyeciliğin Tasfiyesi” (“Liquidation of Liquidators”), was written by Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK.
11. Under this heading the author expressed his views in the following terms:
“Combating 'liquidation' (tasfiye) is of paramount importance for every revolutionary movement. There is hardly any great movement in which 'liquidation' (tasfiye) does not exist. Abdullah Öcalan, the General Secretary of the PKK, examined the characteristics of the liquidators and the destructive damage they caused in the struggle. He reveals his determination on this issue by declaring: 'I will not hesitate even if I have to sacrifice the whole party in order to liquidate one of them'.
In this connection, a further success of the PKK is its never ceasing firm struggle against 'liquidation' (tasfiye). The PKK has revealed facts that almost no other revolutionary movement managed to do. This discipline and determination of the PKK may give an idea about its prospective system and the characteristics of its creators.
The PKK has, in this sense, diagnosed at the right time the 'liquidation' (tasfiye) tendencies which would lead the revolution to defeat, took measures against possible damage, organised the struggle to save the revolution's origins and thus has carried the revolution further to victory. These issues are explicitly taken up and evaluated in the book. 'Liquidation of Liquidators' (Tasfiyeciliğin Tasfiyesi) is not a theoretical work, nor a book written after examination of the relevant literature. On the contrary, it is a book that collects in chronological order the evaluations on the problem of 'liquidation' (tasfiye), encountered in practice during a long and hard struggle. The book is in this respect a documentary, including information and instructive lessons not only for The National Liberation Struggle for Kurdistan but also for all class or national liberation movements in the world.”
12. The titles of the other books reviewed in the same article are “History of Colonisation” and “From the nineteenth century to this day, the national problem and Kürdistan” and “The Cease-fire declared by the PKK and its Effects”. Under the last article, the applicant stated:
“... [the] Cease fire, which was declared on 20 March 1993 by the PKK did not reach its goal, on the contrary, [it] continued the dirty war in Kürdistan. In fact, the guerrillas blocked the Elazığ-Bitlis highway on 25 May 1993 killed twenty-nine soldiers and the cease fire, which had not been responded to, ended.”
13. On 1 June 1994, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant with disseminating propaganda about an illegal separatist terrorist organisation. The charges in the indictment were brought under Article 7 § 2 of Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).
14. The public prosecutor based his indictment on the following sentences from the applicant's article:
“...In this connection, a further success of the PKK is its never ceasing firm struggle against liquidation. The PKK has revealed facts that almost no other revolutionary movement managed to do. This discipline and determination of the PKK may give an idea about its prospective system and the characteristics of its creators.
The PKK has, in this sense, diagnosed at the right time the liquidation tendencies which would lead the revolution to defeat, took measures against possible damage, organised the struggle to save the revolution's origins and thus has carried the revolution further to victory...”
15. On 20 March 1995 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty of the offence under Section 7 § 2 of Prevention of Terrorism Act and sentenced him to one year imprisonment and to a fine of four hundred million Turkish liras (TRL).
16. In its reasoning the court pointed out the following passage in the article:
“...In this connection, a further success of the PKK is its never ceasing firm struggle against liquidation... The PKK has, in this sense, diagnosed at the right time the liquidation tendencies which would lead the revolution to defeat, took measures against possible damage, organised the struggle to save the revolution's origins and thus has carried the revolution further to victory...”
17. The court, taking into consideration the above-mentioned remarks of the author and the impugned article as a whole, held that the applicant had disseminated propaganda about the PKK while reviewing books written by the leader and leading members of the PKK.
18. On 10 October 1995, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court.
19. Following the judgment of the Court of Cassation the applicant disappeared in order to avoid imprisonment. He was apprehended on 2 March 2002 and taken into custody. On 4 March 2002 the applicant was released from custody. On 25 July 2002 Istanbul State Security Court suspended the execution of his sentence pursuant to Law no. 4454.
20. The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments and decision: İbrahim Aksoy v. Turkey, nos. 28635/95, 30171/96 and 34535/97, §§ 41-42, 10 October 2000, Özel v. Turkey no. 42739/98, §§ 20-21, 7 November 2002, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, §§ 11-12, 23 October 2003, and Halis v. Turkey (dec.), no. 30007/96, 23 May 2002.
21. By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the official journal on 30 June 2004, the State Security Courts have been abolished.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 10
6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-72216
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: FRA
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2006
DOCNAME: CASE OF GINIEWSKI v. FRANCE
IMPORTANCE: 1
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 10
JUDGES: András Baka;Antonella Mularoni;Elisabet Fura;Jean-Paul Costa;Karel Jungwiert;Mindia Ugrekhelidze
TEXT: 11. The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Paris. He explained that he sought in all of his work to promote a rapprochement between Jews and Christians.
12. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
13. In its issue of 4 January 1994, the newspaper Le quotidien de Paris published an article written by the applicant, entitled “The obscurity of error” concerning the papal encyclical “The Splendour of Truth” (“Veritatis Splendor”), which had been published at the end of 1993.
14. On 18 March 1994 the association General Alliance against Racism and for Respect for the French and Christian Identity (Alliance générale contre le racisme et pour le respect de l'identité française et chrétienne (AGRIF)) brought proceedings before the Paris Criminal Court against Mr P. Tesson, publishing director of the newspaper, the applicant and the newspaper Le quotidien de Paris, as author, accomplice and the entity civilly liable respectively, alleging that, through publication of the above-mentioned article, they had made racially defamatory statements against the Christian community, an offence punishable under section 32, second paragraph, of the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881. In particular, they referred to the following passages:
“The Catholic Church sets itself up as the sole keeper of divine truth ... It strongly proclaims the fulfilment of the Old Covenant in the New, and the superiority of the latter ...
... Many Christians have acknowledged that scriptural anti-Judaism and the doctrine of the 'fulfilment' [accomplissement] of the Old Covenant in the New led to anti-Semitism and prepared the ground in which the idea and implementation [accomplissement] of Auschwitz took seed.”
15. By a judgment of 4 October 1994, the Criminal Court dismissed the objections of invalidity raised by the applicant and, inter alia, committed the case for trial. By a judgment of 8 March 1995, the Criminal Court found established the offence of publicly defaming a group of persons on the ground of membership of a religion, in this case the Christian community. The publishing director and the applicant were both ordered to pay a fine of 6,000 French francs (FRF).
16. The Criminal Court found the AGRIF's civil application admissible and ordered the publishing director and the applicant, jointly and severally, to pay the association one franc in damages and FRF 7,000 in application of Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In addition, the court ordered that its decision be published, at the defendants' expense up to FRF 10,000, in a national newspaper. In its judgment, it stated, inter alia:
“The Catholic Church, which is described as holding, exclusively and in error, divine truth, is accused of proclaiming its attachment to the doctrine of the fulfilment of the Old Covenant in the New Covenant, a doctrine that was reaffirmed in the encyclical 'The Splendour of Truth'. It is also stated that anti-Judaism in the Scriptures and this doctrine of fulfilment 'led to anti-Semitism and prepared the ground in which the idea and implementation of Auschwitz took seed'.
Thus, according to the author of the text, not only the idea, but even the implementation of the massacres and horrors committed at Auschwitz, the symbol of the Nazi extermination camps, was a direct extension of one of the core doctrines of the Catholic faith, namely the doctrine of the fulfilment of the Old Covenant in the New, and thus directly engages the responsibility of Catholics and, more generally, Christians.
Such a statement clearly undermines the honour and character of Christians and, more specifically, the Catholic community, and is covered by the provisions of section 32, second paragraph, of the [Freedom of the Press Act] of 29 July 1881.
... the causal link between membership of a religion and the events imputed by the impugned remarks is certainly present in this case: it is because they adhere to a religion that has allegedly displayed anti-Semitism in its past and because they acknowledge the status of the papal encyclical and the doctrine of fulfilment asserted in it that Christians and Catholics are accused of bearing some responsibility for the Auschwitz massacres.
... Even if the defendant was entitled to condemn Christianity's historical anti-Semitism and to alert the reader to any new expression or resurgence of that sentiment, by pointing out that, historically, the various Christian churches have sometimes accepted or even encouraged the idea of 'the teaching of contempt' with regard to the Jewish people, who are described as deicidal, he nevertheless had no right, when the new papal encyclical was published reaffirming the doctrine of 'fulfilment', to use extreme terms and, through a process of generalisation, to hold the Catholic community responsible for the Nazi massacres at Auschwitz.
The witnesses questioned at the hearing, at the defendant's request and in support of his allegation of good faith, all claimed that Nazism, a racist and biological doctrine, was totally unconnected to the historical anti-Semitism of Christians and the doctrine of 'fulfilment', which concerns the full realisation of the law of God's old alliance with his people in the new alliance born of Christ's sacrifice.
Finally, the confusion made between, on the one hand, Christian anti-Semitism and the encyclical 'The Splendour of Truth', which Mr Giniewski furthermore refrained from commenting on during the hearing, and, on the other hand, the persecution of the Jews in Auschwitz, reflects personal animosity on the part of the defendant and resentment towards the Christian community which lack good faith, since the disputed statements go well beyond theoretical and theological discussion.
In this regard, the Court notes the deliberate use of the same word 'accomplissement' to describe the organisation of the massacres in Auschwitz and the doctrine reaffirmed by the Pope in his encyclical.
It follows from these elements as a whole that proof of the defendant's good faith has not been provided.”
17. The applicant appealed. In a judgment of 9 November 1995, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld, in so far as it concerned the applicant, the judgment of 4 October 1994 and overturned the judgment of 8 March 1995. The Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant and dismissed the civil party's claims against him. In particular, it held that:
“... in his article, Paul Giniewski criticises the encyclical 'The Splendour of Truth' for, in essence, enshrining within the body of theological principles the doctrine of the 'fulfilment' of the Old Covenant in the New, a doctrine he considered to contain the seeds of anti-Semitism; this criticism is expressed unambiguously in the penultimate paragraph of the article ...;
... the contention in Paul Giniewski's statements may be summarised as follows: certain principles of the Catholic religion are tainted with anti-Semitism and contributed to the Holocaust;
... the Court is fully aware of the reactions such an article could evoke within the Catholic community, even if the author claims to be reflecting the opinion of 'many Christians';
... nonetheless, ... in criticising the encyclical 'The Splendour of Truth' so strongly, Paul Giniewski opened a discussion that was both theological and historical on the scope of certain religious principles and on the origins of the Holocaust; given that it concerns exclusively doctrinal debate, the argument put forward by this author is not, as a matter of law, a specific fact that could amount to defamation ...”
18. The AGRIF appealed on points of law. In a judgment of 28 April 1998, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, “but only in so far as it concerned the civil action, all other provisions being expressly upheld”. It remitted the case to the Orléans Court of Appeal. The Court of Cassation stated:
“... by ruling in this way, although the impugned statements imputed incitement to anti-Semitism and responsibility for the massacres committed at Auschwitz to the Catholic community, the Court of Appeal did not give a legal basis to its decision;
The judgment falls to be quashed, but only in respect of the civil action ...”
19. In a judgment of 14 December 1998, the Orléans Court of Appeal, ruling on the civil claims and following the Court of Cassation's analysis, upheld the judgments of 4 October 1994 and 8 March 1995 in so far as they concerned the applicant. The Court of Appeal made a new award of FRF 10,000 to the AGRIF on the basis of Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also ordered that the following statement be published, at the defendant's expense, in a national newspaper of the civil party's choice:
“By a judgment of 14 December 1998, the Orléans Court of Appeal ordered Paul GINIEWSKI, journalist, to pay the General Alliance against Racism and for Respect for the French and Christian Identity (AGRIF) 1 FRANC (one) in damages, on the ground that he had committed the offence of public defamation against a group of persons on account of their membership of a religion, in the instant case the Christian community, through his publication of ... an article entitled 'As regards the Encyclical “The Splendour of Truth”, The obscurity of error...' ”.
20. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal noted, inter alia:
“... The defendant is wrong in denying that he accused Catholics and, more generally, Christians of being responsible for the Nazi massacres; it is of little importance that this responsibility is viewed in a more or less long-term perspective, given the use of the expression 'prepared the ground';
It emerges, after analysis of the documents submitted, that neither the Pope nor the [Catholic] Church of France alleges the direct responsibility of Catholics in the extermination at Auschwitz;
Thus, on account of their membership of a religion, Christians are indeed victims of the offence of defamation;
... the virulence of the article's general tone, the parallel made between the 'doctrine of fulfilment' and the 'implementation of Auschwitz' and even the use of this last word, which is sufficient in itself to evoke both genocide and the extermination of opponents of the Nazi regime, rule out the possibility of the author's good faith ...”
21. The applicant appealed on points of law. As part of the single argument set out in support of his appeal, he referred to Article 10 of the Convention and claimed that his objective and sincere statements had not been unnecessarily polemical and malicious and that they had not therefore failed to meet the requirements of good faith.
22. On 14 June 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on points of law on the following grounds:
“... the Court of Cassation is satisfied from the wording of the judgment appealed against and analysis of the evidence in the case file that the Court of Appeal, in ruling that the defendant was excluded from the benefit of a finding of good faith, relied on grounds which were sufficient and free of contradictions, answered the submissions made to it and analysed the particular circumstances relied on by the defendant ...”
23. The published article read:
“As regards the encyclical 'The Splendour of Truth'
The obscurity of error...
John Paul II's new encyclical, 'The Splendour of Truth', concerns the basis of moral theology from the perspective of Catholic teaching. It is intended to provide the faithful with answers to the questions put to Jesus by a young man in a New Testament parable: What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Unfortunately, from the point of view of other religions and from the Jewish perspective, the Pope's text is based on two types of assertion:
1. The Catholic Church sets itself up as the sole keeper of divine truth and assumes the 'duty' of disseminating its doctrine as the sole universal teaching.
2. It strongly proclaims the fulfilment of the Old Covenant in the New and the superiority of the latter, a doctrine which propagates 'the teaching of contempt' for the Jews, long since condemned by Jules Isaac as an element in the development of anti-Semitism.
According to John Paul II, 'the task of authentically interpreting the word of God ... has been entrusted only to those charged with the Church's living Magisterium', which is consequently empowered to state that some theological and even philosophical affirmations are 'incompatible with revealed truth'. The Catholic Church is said to possess 'a light and a power capable of answering even the most controversial and complex questions'.
Non-Catholics are viewed with disdain: '... whatever goodness and truth is found in them is considered by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.'
The passing away of Jewish religious tradition is asserted with the same arrogance.
The Law, which the Church labels 'old', merely prefigures Christian perfection. The Mosaic Decalogue is 'a promise and sign of the New Covenant'. Jesus is the 'new Moses'. The Law of Moses is only a 'figure of the true law', 'an image of the truth'. Moses came down from Mount Sinai carrying 'tablets of stone' in his hands. The apostles carried 'the Holy Spirit in their hearts'. Christian law is 'written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts'. The prescriptions imparted by God in the Old Covenant 'attained their perfection in the New'.
For the old law was incomplete. Admittedly, it had a pedagogical function. But it was unable to give the 'righteousness' it demanded: only the new law gives grace, it 'is not content to say what must be done', but also gives the power to 'do what is true'.
We find here ideas which were already explored in the voluminous 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' of 1992. As in that unfortunate catechism, a few arrows are also fired, in line with Catholic tradition, at the Pharisees. The faithful are called to take 'great care ... not to allow themselves to be tainted by the attitude of the Pharisee', which, in our day, is expressed in adapting the moral norm to one's own capacities and personal interests, that is, in rejecting the very idea of a moral norm.
One must wonder how Catholics and the Catholic religious authorities would 'appreciate' an equivalent Jewish attack on the New Covenant.
One must also wonder how the Polish pontiff reconciles his encyclical with the exhortation in the 'Ten Points of Seelisberg' and with the requirement envisaged in the first draft of the declaration on the Jews at Vatican II, calling on Christians not to teach anything that would vilify the Jews and their doctrine.
Many Christians have acknowledged that scriptural anti-Judaism and the doctrine of the 'fulfilment' [accomplissement] of the Old Covenant in the New led to anti-Semitism and prepared the ground in which the idea and implementation [accomplissement] of Auschwitz took seed.
No consideration is given to this by the Holy See in 1993. In proclaiming the splendour of truth, it perseveres in obscurity and error.”
24. The applicant's statements contribute to a recurrent debate of ideas between historians, theologians and religious authorities. The two most recent Popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, as well as the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, have discussed the possibility that the manner in which the Jews are presented in the New Testament contributed to creating hostility against them. In particular, reference is made to the “Declaration of Repentance of the Church of France” of 30 September 1997, which emphasises the Church of France's historical responsibility towards the Jewish people; the speech given on 31 October 1997 by John Paul II during a colloquy on the “Roots of Anti-Judaism in the Christian Environment”; or, more recently, the book The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, published in 2001 by the Pontifical Biblical Commission under the direction of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – in its preface, the latter writes with regard to the Shoah that “in the light of what has happened, what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament”.
25. The relevant sections of the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881 provide as follows:
“It shall be defamatory to make any statement or allegation of a fact that damages the honour or reputation of the person or body of whom the fact is alleged. The direct publication or reproduction of such a statement or allegation shall be an offence, even if expressed in tentative terms or if made about a person or body not expressly named but identifiable by the terms of the impugned speeches, shouts, threats, written or printed matter, placards or posters.
It shall be an insult to use any abusive or contemptuous language or invective not containing an allegation of fact.”
“Defamation of an individual by one of the means set forth in section 23 shall be punishable by a fine of FRF 80,000.
Defamation by the same means of a person or group of people on the ground of their origin or their membership or non-membership of a specific ethnic group, nation, race or religion shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment of one year and a fine of FRF 300,000 or one of those penalties only.
Where a conviction is secured for one of the offences listed in the preceding paragraph the court may also order:
1. the decision to be posted up or displayed in accordance with Article 131-35 of the Criminal Code.”
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 10


ITEMID: 001-138425
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2013
DOCNAME: BORGDORF v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković
TEXT: 1. The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Borgdorf, is a Russian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Veseloyarsk, the Altay Region. He was represented before the Court by Mr V.A. Novitskiy, a lawyer practising in the town of Rubtsovsk of the Altay Region.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On 1 June 2004 local policemen arrested the applicant while he was driving his truck near the border between Kazakhstan and Russia in the Altay Region and charged him with smuggling.
5. Further examination of the truck in the presence of witnesses proved that the applicant was carrying merchandise bypassing customs checks.
6. The applicant was then brought to the local police station for questioning. In a short while his lawyer arrived there. He demanded a meeting with the applicant, but the policemen refused to let him in.
7. The applicant alleged that while he was at the police station, officer V. beat him up in an attempt to force him to confess. The applicant refused to give any statements. It appears that after some time he was released and the subsequent investigative actions took place in the presence of his lawyer.
8. The next day, the applicant was examined by a forensic expert who reached the following conclusions:
“... scratches on the right side of the forehead, small scratches over the right eyebrow, bruises in the area of the right radiocarpal articulation.”
9. On one of the following days the applicant requested that the local prosecutor’s office open criminal proceedings against officer V. on account of the alleged beatings.
10. On 7 June 2004 an investigator from the Rubtsovsk town prosecutor’s office, having examined the results of the applicant’s forensic examination and the testimonies of Mr V. and the other policemen who had met the applicant on the day of the event, decided not to open a criminal case.
11. On 26 August 2004 the deputy regional prosecutor of the Altay Regional Prosecutor’s Office rejected the applicant’s complaint against the above decision as groundless. It appears that the applicant made no further attempts to appeal against these decisions.
12. As indicated above, on 1 June 2004 the applicant was arrested, brought to the police station and charged with smuggling. The applicant claims that while he was at the police station his lawyer tried to reach him, but he was denied access by other police officers.
13. On 23 July 2004 an investigator allegedly asked the applicant’s lawyer to sign an undertaking to keep all information concerning the investigation confidential, but he refused to do so.
14. The trial commenced on an unspecified date. During the proceedings the applicant submitted that some evidence was inadmissible as he had been subjected to “physical violence” at the police station. He gave no further details in that regard.
15. At the hearing of 16 January 2005 the defence lodged the motion seeking to question witness Mr G. The same day the trial court refused the request.
16. On 18 January 2005 the Rubtsovsk District Court found the applicant guilty of smuggling and gave him a suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment.
17. On 27 January 2005 the applicant lodged a statement of appeal drafted with the help of his lawyer. He claimed that the trial court had assessed the facts of his case incorrectly and had applied the domestic law wrongly. He also claimed that the proposal that his lawyer should sign an undertaking to keep the information about the investigation confidential had infringed his right to defence.
18. On 24 February 2005 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
19. The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in force since 1 July 2002 (Law no. 174-FZ of 18 December 2001, the “CCrP”), establishes that a criminal investigation may be initiated by an investigator or prosecutor upon the complaint of an individual (Articles 140 and 146). Within three days of receiving such a complaint, the investigator or prosecutor must carry out a preliminary inquiry and take one of the following decisions: (1) to open criminal proceedings if there are reasons to believe that a crime has been committed; (2) to refuse to open criminal proceedings if the inquiry reveals that there are no grounds to initiate a criminal investigation; or (3) to refer the complaint to the relevant investigative authority. The complainant must be notified of any decision taken. Refusal to open criminal proceedings is amenable to appeal to a higher-ranking prosecutor or a court of general jurisdiction (Articles 144, 145 and 148). A prosecutor is responsible for overall supervision of the investigation (Article 37). He or she can order specific investigative actions, transfer the case from one investigator to another or order an additional investigation. Article 125 of the CCrP provides for judicial review of decisions by investigators and prosecutors that might infringe the constitutional rights of participants in proceedings or prevent access to court.


ITEMID: 001-4604
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: FIN
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 1999
DOCNAME: PELTONEN v. FINLAND
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Georg Ress
TEXT: The applicant is a Finnish national, born in 1962 and currently serving his prison sentence in Kerava Youth Prison in Kerava, Finland. He is represented before the Court by Ms Tiina Nystén, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.
On 3 May 1994 N. was charged before the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) with aggravated narcotics offences concerning at least 30 kilos of cannabis (case R 94/2284). He had stated to the police that he had committed several aggravated narcotics offences in 1992-1994 and incriminated several other people, including the present applicant, during the police investigations. The case was adjourned until 17 May 1994 as the police investigations had not finished.
N.’s case was heard on 17 and 31 May 1994. N. confessed to the court that he had dealt in about 200 kilos of cannabis. The case was adjourned until 14 June 1994 as the police investigations continued.
On 19 May 1994 the present applicant, Mr Peltonen, was taken into police custody as he was suspected of an aggravated narcotics offence on the basis of the information revealed by N. to the police. The applicant was brought before the Helsinki District Court four days later, i.e. on 23 May 1994. The court ordered his detention on remand until the first hearing of his case (case R 94/3064) on 14 June 1994.
On 14 June 1994 N. was charged with additional aggravated narcotics offences which he confessed to. The case (case R 94/2284) was again adjourned until 21 June 1994.
There was a hearing in the present applicant’s case (case R 94/3064) before the Helsinki District Court on 14 June 1994, in which the applicant was charged with an aggravated narcotics offence and illegal possession of a firearm. The applicant was suspected of having had in his possession 12.5 kilos of cannabis with intention to deal therein in March 1994 and a firearm. The applicant confessed to the illegal possession of a firearm and denied the narcotics offence. The case was adjourned until 21 June 1994.
On 21 June 1994 before the District Court N. repeated all his statements to the police and stated that he would stand by them. N.’s case (case R 94/2284) was joined with another case (R 94/1409).
The applicant’s case (R 94/3064) was heard on 21 June 1994 separately from N.’s case. The applicant’s case was adjourned until 5 July 1994 as the police investigations had not finished.
On 5 July 1994 the applicant’s case was again heard separately from N.’s case. The applicant was additionally charged with several aggravated narcotics offences. He was suspected of having possessed 10-15 kilos of cannabis in April-May 1993, 14-15 kilos of cannabis in June 1993, 20 and 12.5 kilos of cannabis in August 1993, 20 kilos of cannabis in September 1993, 20 kilos of cannabis October 1993 and 25 kilos of cannabis in November 1993. The applicant denied all the additional charges. The case was adjourned until 19 July 1994.
On 5 July 1994 there was also a hearing in case R 94/1409 (the case number used after the joinder of N.’s case with another case) against N. and now twelve other accused, concerning several aggravated narcotics offences. Several charges were brought against N. and other co-accused. The case was adjourned until 19 July 1994.
On 19 July 1994 the applicant’s case (R 94/3064) was again heard separately from N.’s case. The applicant denied all the charges and stated that they were all based solely on N.’s statements made in the course of a police investigation and a hearing at which the applicant was not represented and that there was no other evidence against him. He requested to be released as he had not been given an opportunity to question N. He also submitted that N. had changed his statements to the police so that these could not be found credible. The public prosecutor objected to the applicant’s request, stating that the applicant would, if released, interfere with the investigations which had not yet finished. The case was adjourned until 2 August 1994.
By this time there was also a hearing in case R 94/1409 against N. and eighteen other accused (not including the applicant). N. stated to the District Court that he would not repeat his previous statements and retracted them. The case was also adjourned until 2 August 1994.
On 2 August 1994 the applicant’s case (R 94/3064) was joined with yet another case (R 94/3270) in which there were five other accused concerning the same drug trafficking offences (including H. to whom the applicant had allegedly given the drugs). The public prosecutor stated that the investigations were still unfinished and requested that the case should be adjourned. The applicant stated that he would respond to the charges in detail as soon as N. can be questioned. H. denied that the applicant had had anything to do with the narcotics. The case was adjourned until 16 August 1994.
On 2 August 1994 there was also a hearing in case R 94/1409 against N. and several other accused. The case was adjourned until 16 August 1994.
On 16 August 1994 there was a hearing in the applicant’s case (now R 94/3270 after the joinder of the applicant’s case with H.’s case). The applicant requested to be released as there was nothing left to “interfere with” in the investigations and as he had still not been given a chance to put questions to N. The case was adjourned until 30 August 1994.
By this time there was also a hearing in case R 94/1409 against N. and others. The case was adjourned until 30 August 1994.
On 30 August 1994 there was a hearing in both cases (R 94/1409 and R 94/3270) which were now joined. There was a total of 20 accused including the applicant, N. and H. The public prosecutor asked N. whether the applicant had been with H. collecting the drugs from N. N. answered “no”. N. also stated that at his stage he did not want to repeat everything he had said about H., the applicant and two other accused. The public prosecutor withdrew a part of the charges (concerning five kilos of cannabis at the end of 1993) against the applicant but stated that the applicant had dealt in two kilos of cannabis on 11 February 1994. The applicant’s legal counsel asked N. questions about the latter’s health. After this questioning the counsel stated that N. was ill and could not properly concentrate on the questions put to him during this hearing. She also submitted that there were several discrepancies between N.’s various statements and that N.’s statements did not support the charges against the applicant. The case was adjourned until 13 September 1994.
On 13 September 1994 there was another hearing in case R 94/1409 before the District Court. The public prosecutor submitted several police investigation reports to the court. The case was adjourned until 27 September 1994.
On 27 September 1994 the case was heard again. The public prosecutor submitted new police investigation reports to the court. N. refused to comment on any of his statements and stated that he would remain silent. He also stated that he would not answer any questions put to him as he “wanted to reserve an opportunity for all the innocent co-accused to tell the truth”. The applicant’s legal counsel stated that she had prepared questions for N. but could not put them to him at the moment as N. had said that he would not answer any questions. The case was adjourned until 11 October 1994. The applicant was ordered to be released from detention.
At the District Court hearing on 11 October 1994 N. again refused to repeat his statements concerning the applicant, H. and two others as he could not “take the responsibility if innocent men were convicted on the basis of his statements”. The applicant’s legal counsel put a question to N. (the question and any answer to it is not on the file). The case was adjourned until 25 October 1994.
On 25 October 1994 the case was heard again. The applicant submitted that the only evidence against him was the earlier statements of N. and that N. had withdrawn them. N. was convicted of 13 aggravated narcotics offences and two counts of possession of an illegal firearm and sentenced to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. Two other accused were convicted of different narcotics offences and sentenced to imprisonment. The rest of the case was adjourned until 8 November 1994, including the applicant’s case.
On 8 November 1994 the case was heard again. The public prosecutor submitted a report, dated 7 November 1994, to the court concerning telecommunications between the accused. The report had been served on the applicant’s legal counsel the previous afternoon. The public prosecutor submitted a complete list of the telephone calls, with details of their duration and dates, but the legal counsel was provided only with a list concerning the number of the phone calls. The applicant’s counsel commented telecommunications between the accused, without requesting a further adjournment on the basis of the new report. The counsel gave her closing speech in which the fact that the report concerning telecommunications had been submitted to the counsel only on the previous day was not raised. The District Court convicted the applicant of eight aggravated narcotics offences and illegal possession of a firearm and sentenced him to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant was detained on remand. The reasoning of the court reads as follows:
(translation from Finnish)
“[The applicant] has denied all the charges except for charge number 31 [concerning illegal possession of a firearm]. ...
The conviction is based on N.’s statements. The District Court has stated above why it has found N.’s statements credible. N. told about the applicant’s participation at a fairly early stage of the investigations and in a fairly detailed manner. N. revealed that [the applicant] had assisted H. when H. collected the cannabis from N. N. identified the suitcase confiscated from [the applicant] as similar to the suitcase used by [the applicant] when collecting the cannabis from him. H. stated that [the applicant] had taken care of certain things for him. N.’s statement concerning the close co-operation between H. and [the applicant] is also supported by the fact that [the applicant] has lived with his girlfriend in a flat rented by H. from the City of Helsinki. Also Mrs H. has testified that [the applicant] had helped H. with all kinds of things. [The applicant] has, inter alia, witnessed H.’s signature to a deed concerning H.’s flat in Porvoo. One of the witnesses, M., has testified that [the applicant] had been “hanging around” a garage owned by N. [The applicant] had been there fairly often either alone or with H. [The applicant’s] girlfriend has had a car put to her disposal by H. [The applicant] has stated that a mobil phone line was opened in his name in the spring 1994. The mobile phone was, however, in the use of H. and was also left with H. This has also been certified by Mrs H.
36,000 Finnish Marks (FIM) was confiscated from [the applicant] when he was arrested. FIM 25,000 of the above-mentioned money was hidden in the body of a car. Considering that [the applicant] has testified that he has been unemployed for quite some time now it is not credible that the money was earned by him as a locksmith.
H. has had much more telephone connections with [the applicant] than any other accused in this case. In addition to that [the applicant] has been in close contact with the rest of the accused.
It must be found that [the applicant] has received at least FIM 36,000 as the illegal profit of his actions.”
On 7 December 1994 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätt), requesting an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal. He stated that he should not have been found guilty on the basis of N.’s statements as there was no other evidence against him and as N. had withdrawn his statements as far as the applicant was concerned. The applicant and N. did not appear before the court at the same hearing until 30 August 1994. At that hearing N. did not repeat his statements concerning the allegations against the applicant. The additional investigations did not finish until 27 September 1994, when N. declared that he would remain silent from then onwards. N. did not repeat his statements at the later stages of the proceedings and, thus, no questions were put to N. either by the applicant’s counsel or by the public prosecutor. According to the applicant, N.’s statements could not be regarded as credible and therefore, there was no evidence at all against him. He also pointed out that the report concerning telecommunications between the accused was finished on 7 November 1994 and submitted to the court and to the accused’s legal counsel on 8 November 1994, i.e. on the day of the conviction.
On 27 April 1994 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment without holding an oral hearing. On 8 September 1995 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.


ITEMID: 001-82042
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2007
DOCNAME: CASE OF BAYAM v. TURKEY
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 5-3
TEXT: 3. The applicant was born in 1975 and was detained in the Batman E-Type Prison at the time of his application to the Court.
4. On 14 December 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party).
5. On 28 December 1993 the Batman Magistrates' Court ordered his detention on remand.
6. On 25 January 1994 the public prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court against the applicant and twelve other people, charging him with carrying out activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the State and removing part of the national territory from the State's control. He requested the court to sentence the applicant in accordance with Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
7. On 27 December 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code of membership of the PKK and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment.
8. On 10 November 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court in respect of the applicant and a certain R.K., holding that the applicant should have been convicted of membership of the PKK and for throwing explosives, under Articles 168 § 2 and 264 of the Criminal Code. The case against the applicant and R.K. was referred to the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
9. On 3 November 1998 the first-instance court convicted the applicant under Articles 168 § 2 and 264 of the Criminal Code. It sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months' imprisonment for membership of the PKK and to five years, six months and twenty days' imprisonment for having thrown explosives.
10. On 15 June 1999 the Court of Cassation once again quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.
11. On 26 September 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. However, it acquitted the applicant of the charge under Article 264 of the Criminal Code.
12. On 22 February 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal, holding that it had not been submitted within the statutory time-limit.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 5
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 5-3


ITEMID: 001-73407
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: MDA
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2006
DOCNAME: COOPERATIVA AGRICOLA POJARNITA-MED  v. MOLDOVA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Nicolas Bratza
TEXT: The applicant is a company registered in Moldova. It is represented before the Court by Mr G. Botezat, a lawyer practising in Ştefan Vodă. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Pârlog.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 16 April 2002 the Chişinău Economic Court handed down a judgment by which it obliged the State owned company “Moldtranselectro” (“the debtor”) to pay its debt to the applicant in the total amount of 33,514 Moldovan lei (MDL). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became enforceable on 2 May 2002.
The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the Bailiff did not enforce. On 27 May 2002 it wrote to the Decision Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice requesting the execution of the judgment and the freezing of the property of its debtor. On 17 July 2002 it requested the Ministry of Justice to take measures for the execution of the judgment.
On 26 July 2002 the Centre District Court of Chişinău decided to return the enforcement warrant to the applicant without execution because the debtor did not have any assets. On 30 July 2002 the Decision Enforcement Department returned the enforcement warrant without execution. The same Department sent another letter to the applicant on 5 August 2002 stating that it had verified on 12 July 2002 the financial situation of the debtor and discovered that it had a significant debt towards the public budget. It had also verified the contention that the debtor continued to operate and had assets (for instance company cars) but it had not found any evidence of such assets.
On 31 October 2002 the applicant concluded a contract with the debtor, according to which the debtor ceded to the applicant its right to collect a debt from a third party and thereby was relieved of its debt towards the applicant. The applicant did not submit that it had attempted to collect the debt from the third party.
The relevant domestic law has been set out in this Court’s judgment in the case of Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, ECHR 2004... (extracts).


ITEMID: 001-101318
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2010
DOCNAME: MARIOS ELEFTHERIADES v. TURKEY
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä
TEXT: The first and second applicants are married and the third and fourth applicants are their children. They are of Greek-Cypriot origin and have Cypriot and British nationality. They were born in 1937, 1941, 1965 and 1966 respectively and live in London. The fifth applicant, Eleftheriades Development Co Ltd, is a company incorporated in Cyprus on 1 July 1972, under registration no. 4517. The applicants are represented before the Court by Scordis, Papapetrou & Co and Adamos K. Adamides & Co, lawyers practising in Nicosia.
The facts of the case as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The first four applicants were all born and brought up in Famagusta, in northern Cyprus. Until 1974 they all lived together in their home in the town of Famagusta. The first applicant had established his own architectural office in Famagusta, in which he employed another eight persons. The applicants are the owners or part owners of properties in northern Cyprus, including the family home (owned by the second applicant alone), various building plots, an office, houses, an orange grove and two shops.
The fifth applicant is a family company, co-owned by the first and second applicants. The first applicant is also the director and secretary of the company. The registered office of the company was situated in the building owned by the second applicant. The company's main activities were in land investment and development. It claimed to own property which it had started developing, in the areas of Famagusta and Kyrenia. In particular, it is the registered owner of a building site in Famagusta and claims to be entitled to be registered as the owner of a plot of land in Famagusta as well as the owner of a half share in four plots of land in Dherynia. It maintains that it owns one third of the shares in another limited liabilty company, namely, Melenes Development Ltd, incorporated in Cyprus on 14 December 1972, under registration no. 4927. The first and second applicants are two of the six directors of that company and the first applicant is also the secretary. This company is the owner of four plots of land in the district of Kyrenia which were to be divided into 90 building sites.
The applicants stated that in August 1974 they had to abandon their home, property and possessions.Since August 1974, the applicants have not had access to and/or use of their property and home.


ITEMID: 001-118569
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2013
DOCNAME: CASE OF MERYEM ÇELİK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Six month period);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award
JUDGES: Guido Raimondi;Nebojša Vučinić;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen
TEXT: 5. The applicants are Turkish nationals and live in the Şemdinli district of Hakkari.
6. The applicants are the close relatives of the thirteen persons who went missing (Casım Çelik, Aşur Seçkin, Cemal Sevli, Yusuf Çelik, Mirhaç Çelik, Naci Şengül, Seddık Şengül, Reşit Sevli, Kemal İzci, Hayrullah Öztürk, Salih Şengül, Hurşit Taşkın and Abdullah İnan) and one person who was allegedly killed (Kerem İnan) in July 1994, during an operation conducted by security forces in the Ormancık hamlet of the Ortaklar village, in the Şemdinli district of Hakkari. The inhabitants of Ormancık had been village guards prior to the events giving rise to the present application. The relationship between the applicants and their missing relatives is as follows:
Meryem Çelik - wife of Casım Çelik;
Misrihan Sevli - wife of Cemal Sevli;
Emine Çelik - wife of Yusuf Çelik;
Marya Çelik - wife of Mirhaç Çelik;
Hamit Şengül - brother of Naci Şengül;
Fatma Şengül - wife of Seddık Şengül;
Besna Sevli - wife of Reşit Sevli;
Hanife İzci - wife of Kemal İzci;
Şakir Öztürk- brother of Hayrullah Öztürk;
Kimet Şengül -wife of Salih Şengül;
Hazima Çelik - partner of Hurşit Taşkın;
Şekirnaz İnan - partner of Abdullah İnan;
Zübeyda Uysal -partner of Aşur Seçkin;
Hamayil İnan - wife of Kerem İnan.
7. According to the applicants’ submissions, on 24 July 1994 military and gendarmerie forces arrived in Ormancık. The inhabitants of the hamlet were told by members of the security forces to gather at the helicopter landing pad, which was in the main square. The men of the village were stripped naked and beaten. Two of the applicants, Emine Çelik and Zübeyda Uysal, who were pregnant at the time of the events, were also beaten when they protested against the security forces’ conduct and both eventually suffered miscarriages. Furthermore, Kerem İnan was killed by a non-commissioned gendarmerie officer, a certain F.A., when he did not obey the order to gather in the main square.
8. The security forces set fire to the houses in the hamlet. Subsequently, Cemal Sevli, Reşit Sevli, Aşur Seçkin, Salih Şengül, Yusuf Çelik, Naci Şengül and Kemal İzci were put in military vehicles by the soldiers to be taken to the military base. On the way to the base, the soldiers stopped two cars in which ten villagers were travelling. The soldiers let the four children in the cars go, but arrested Hayrullah Öztürk, Abdullah İnan, Mirhaç Çelik, Seddik Şengül, Casım Çelik and Hurşit Taşkın. The soldiers then set fire to the villagers’ cars.
9. The applicants and other villagers were forced to leave Ormancık and Turkey by the security forces. They then crossed the border into Iraq. In that respect, according to a document dated 24 July 1994, drafted and signed by members of the administrative council (including the mayor) of Ortaklar village, there was an armed clash in Ormancık on that day and all property in the hamlet was burned. The document further states that the inhabitants of Ormancık were forced to leave the hamlet soon afterwards and flee to Iraq.
10. Between 1994 and 1997, the applicants lived in the Atrush refugee camp, which had been established by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in northern Iraq. In March 1997, following the closure of the camp by the United Nations, the applicants moved to Suleymaniyeh, a city in northern Iraq. During the autumn of 1997 they finally returned to Turkey and began living in Şemdinli.
11. On an unspecified date, criminal proceedings were brought against six people who had lived in the Atrush refugee camp, including two of the applicants, Emine Çelik and Besna Sevli, who were charged with aiding and abetting members of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation) while living in the camp.
12. On 28 November 1997 the Van State Security Court acquitted the accused, finding that the charges against them were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
13. In July 1998 a member of parliament, Naim Geylani, visited Şemdinli. Some of the applicants met Mr Geylani and told him that in July 1994 one person had been killed, thirteen others had disappeared and two of the applicants had suffered miscarriages following a military operation in their hamlet. Mr Geylani then requested the Human Rights Commission attached to the Turkish Grand National Assembly (“the Parliamentary Human Rights Commission”) to initiate an investigation into the applicants’ allegations. On 4 July 1998 a newspaper published an article about Mr Geylani’s request.
14. On 10 February 1999 the chair of the Parliamentary Human Rights Commission, Dr Sema Pişkinsüt, sent a letter to Mr Geylani informing him of the findings in the investigation conducted into the alleged events. She stated that in 1988 a number of people from the Ormancık hamlet of Ortaklar village had become village guards. Some of them, including Casım Çelik, Seddık Şengül, Kerem İnan and Salih Şengül (the relatives of the first, seventh, thirteenth and tenth applicants, respectively), had then made a deal with the PKK that it would not perpetrate acts of violence in the village in exchange for logistical support such as a month’s salary from each village guard, food, shelter and ammunition. In July 1994 and June 1995 the village guards had helped members of the PKK to ambush security forces. In the first incident, three members of the security forces had lost their lives and fifteen of them had been injured, and in the second incident fifteen members of the security forces had been killed. According to the report, as a result of pressure from the PKK the villagers moved to the Atrush camp in northern Iraq in July 1994. Following the closure of the Atrush camp by the United Nations, the villagers had returned to their homes in December 1997. Thirteen persons who had been involved in the illegal activities of the PKK had then surrendered to the authorities and seven of them had been put on trial after having been questioned. However, the residents of the Ormancık hamlet, particularly the women who had been questioned by the authorities on their return, had not mentioned anyone having been killed. Nor had they made any such allegations to the authorities. Consequently, it was considered that the allegations were unfounded.
15. On 6 July 1998, after having read the above-mentioned newspaper article (see paragraph 13 above), the Hakkari public prosecutor asked the Şemdinli public prosecutor to open an investigation into the allegations.
16. In August 1998 and January 1999, Meryem Çelik, Zübeyda Uysal, Misrihan Sevli, Emine Çelik, Fatma Şengül, Besna Sevli, Hanife İzci, Hamayil İnan, Kimet Şengül and Hazima Çelik made statements before the Şemdinli public prosecutor, through interpreters, as they did not speak Turkish. They all maintained that, following the security forces’ arrival at the hamlet, they had been forced to gather in the main square, whereupon the men of the village had been beaten. They stated that they did not know the reason why the security forces had come to the hamlet. They alleged that the security forces had illegally confiscated their belongings, such as money and jewellery, and had destroyed their houses. They further contended that a gendarmerie officer named Fatih had killed Kerem İnan and that seven men had been taken away by soldiers. Hamayil İnan, Kerem İnan’s wife, maintained that they could not bury his husband as they had to leave the hamlet immediately after the killing and that she had been told that Kerem İnan’s corpse had been buried where he had been killed by villagers from another hamlet. The applicants stated that the soldiers had taken six other inhabitants of Ormancık into custody while driving to the military base. The applicants maintained that they had been told that their relatives had subsequently been killed and their corpses left in the vicinity of the military base. They further alleged that a lieutenant colonel known as “Ali” had told the villagers that they were traitors and did not deserve to live in Turkey, and that they should go to live in Iraq, Iran or Syria. The inhabitants of the hamlet had then been coerced into leaving the hamlet and, subsequently, the country. They had been forced to go to Iraq by members of the PKK. Zübeyda Uysal and Emine Çelik further maintained that they had been pregnant at the time of the incident and that they had both suffered miscarriages as a result of having being beaten by the security forces. The applicants requested that those responsible for the killing of Kerem İnan and the disappearance of the thirteen other villagers be found and punished.
17. The Şemdinli public prosecutor also took statements from Lieutenant Colonel A.Ç., who had allegedly been the commanding officer of the soldiers who had gone to Ormancık, as well as from the non-commissioned gendarmerie officer, F.A. They both denied the applicants’ allegations.
18. On 11 August 1998, upon the request of the Şemdinli public prosecutor, the military forces sent a letter to the public prosecutor’s office stating that soldiers had arrested thirteen villagers and taken them to the Derecik military base. The villagers had been released after questioning. However, Aşur Seçkin had died immediately afterwards as a result of gunshot wounds received from an unknown source while trying to escape to join the PKK.
19. On 13 April 1999 the Şemdinli public prosecutor drew up a report (fezleke) in which he set out the developments in the investigation. In his report, the public prosecutor identified A.Ç. and F.A. as the “accused” and Meryem Çelik, Zübeyda Uysal, Misrihan Sevli, Emine Çelik, Fatma Şengül, Besna Sevli, Hanife İzci, Hamayil İnan, Kimet Şengül and Hazima Çelik as the “complainants”. The offences allegedly committed by the accused were defined as homicide, aggravated theft (gasp), the causing of a miscarriage, the forced evacuation of a village and the burning of vehicles. According to this report, on 24 July 1998, in the vicinity of the Ormancık hamlet, two soldiers had been killed and fourteen soldiers wounded, in an ambush set up by members of the PKK with the aid of a group of village guards from the hamlet. Subsequently, a group of soldiers under the command of Lieutenant Colonel A.Ç. and non-commissioned officer F.A. had arrived at the hamlet. The Şemdinli public prosecutor cited the allegations of the applicants who had made statements in August 1998 and January 1999 and the contents of the letter from the military forces dated 11 August 1998. The public prosecutor concluded that the Hakkari Assize Court had jurisdiction to deal with cases involving offences allegedly committed by members of the security forces and referred the investigation file to the Hakkari public prosecutor’s office with a request to punish the accused for the offences cited in the report.
20. On 22 April 1999 the Hakkari public prosecutor declined jurisdiction and sent the file to the Şemdinli District Administrative Council for authorisation to investigate the actions of the members of the security forces, pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 (b) of Legislative Decree no. 285 and the Prosecution of Civil Servants Act.
21. On 8 June 2000 the Şemdinli District Administrative Council decided not to authorise the prosecution of A.Ç. and F.A. In its decision, the Administrative Council noted that the complainants had maintained that they had not known the accused. The Administrative Council further stated that the complainants’ account of events was hypothetical and that the accused officers had not been in Ormancık on 24 July 1994 and furthermore that F.A. had never been there.
22. The decision of 8 June 2000 was not served on the complainants. However, as decisions not to prosecute made by district councils were subject to an automatic appeal to regional administrative courts at the material time, the decision was then referred to the Van Regional Administrative Court.
23. On 18 July 2000 the Van Regional Administrative Court upheld the decision not to prosecute A.Ç. and F.A. This decision was not served on the complainants.
24. On 23 October 2001 the applicants appointed Mr L. Kanat as their legal representative.
25. On 7 March 2002 Mr Kanat applied to the Şemdinli public prosecutor’s office for the case to be referred to the Şemdinli District Administrative Council, and requested information concerning the outcome of the investigation.
26. On 4 April 2002 the Şemdinli public prosecutor sent Mr Kanat a copy of the decisions of the Şemdinli District Administrative Council and the Van Regional Administrative Court.
27. On 10 September 2002 he lodged the present application with the Court.
28. On 2 November 2006 Mr Kanat submitted to the Court a letter dated 7 September 2006 from the president of the Van Regional Administrative Court, stating that review decisions of this type were not communicated to the parties. The president noted that such judgments were sent to the relevant domestic authorities, together with the investigation files.
29. On the same day, Mr Kanat also submitted a document signed by members of the Ortaklar Community Council and four witnesses, in which the latter declared that Zübeyda Uysal, Hazima Çelik and Şekirnaz İnan had been the partners of Aşur Seçkin, Hurşit Taşkın and Abdullah İnan, respectively, to whom they had been married according to Islamic traditions.
30. The relevant domestic law and practice applicable at the material time can be found in the judgment of İpek v. Turkey (no. 25760/94, §§ 92-106, ECHR 2004II).
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 2
3
5
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 2-1
5-1