Country of origin information report Turkey March 2007

Return to contents

Go to list of sources
European Court of Human Rights (ECTHR)
16.39 The European Commission 2005 report recorded that:
“Turkey has made progress in relation to the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This has been highlighted notably in several resolutions by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers and several other sources, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe rapporteur on the implementation of judgements of the ECtHR in June 2005. Both the Committee and the rapporteur have, however, noted that a number of issues are outstanding. In general, it is important that the Turkish authorities ensure that direct effect is given to the case-law of the ECtHR in the Turkish legal order so as to implement the constitutional, legislative and regulatory framework created by Turkey in response to the Court’s judgments. New Article 90 of the Constitution should encourage domestic authorities to act accordingly.” [71d] (p19)
16.40 The EC 2006 report recorded that:
“During the first 8 months of the year 2006, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered 196 final judgements finding that Turkey had violated at least one article of the ECHR. In 5 cases the ECtHR ruled that there was no violation of the ECHR. Most of these judgements refer to cases lodged prior to 1999. From 1st September 2005 until 31 August 2006 2100 new applications regarding Turkey were made to the ECtHR. More than 2/3 of the applications introduced to the ECtHR refer to the right to a fair trial (Article 6) and protection of property rights (Article 1 of Protocol No 1). The right to life (Article 2) and the prohibition of torture (Article 3) are referred to in 78 and 142 cases respectively.” [71a] (p11)
16.41 The EC 2006 report further noted that:
“In relation to the situation in the Southeast, the ECtHR found in the İçyer v. Turkey case that the Law on Compensation and Losses Resulting from Terrorist Acts provides adequate redress to the extent that it is undisputed that the applicant could today return freely to his village (see section on Southeast). Approximately 1500 cases relating to the possibility to return to villages have been declared inadmissible by the Court following this decision. The reforms undertaken by Turkey in 2004 and 2005 have had positive consequences on the execution of judgments of the ECtHR. However, Turkish cases still represent 14.4% of the cases pending before the Committee of Ministers for execution control.” [71a] (p11)
16.42 The EC 2006 report also noted that:
“Restrictions in Turkish legislation prevent the re-opening of domestic proceedings following a violation found by the ECtHR under certain circumstances. This prevents the execution of the ECtHR judgement in the Hulki Güneş case, as well as in 113 cases related to fairness of proceedings before the former state security courts. As regards the Öcalan case, the Court left the question of the reopening largely to the evaluation of domestic authorities under the Committee of Ministers' supervision. In July an Istanbul Court rejected the request for a retrial of Abdullah Öcalan. The Committee of Ministers will evaluate the reasons given by the Istanbul Court for rejecting the appeal at one of its upcoming meetings.” [71a] (p11)
16.43 As reported by BBC News on 12 May 2005:
“Turkey’s trial of Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan was unfair, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has ruled. Turkey said it would address flaws found by the court – suggesting a retrial would be an appropriate option… ‘The applicant was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal,’ the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) said in a statement. The judges ruled that the presence of a military judge on the panel meant that the Turkish court’s judgement could not have been fair. They did not directly call for a retrial but said retrying or reopening Ocalan’s case would be ‘an appropriate way of redressing the violation’… Turkey is one of the 46 members of the Council of Europe, which set up the ECHR. The Grand Chamber’s judgement is final for Council members and cannot be appealed.” [66h]
16.44 The EC 2006 report further noted that:
“Finally, with regards to property rights, the ECtHR ruled in the case of Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey that a remedy which secures effective redress for violations must be introduced, in relation to the applicant, as well as in respect of all similar applications pending before the Court.” [71a] (p12)
16.45 The EC 2006 report further noted that, “The Court demanded that Turkey introduces a remedy which secures effective redress for violations, in relation to the application, as well as in respect of all similar applications pending before the Court in accordance with the Convention and within the established deadlines. The ECtHR has not yet ruled on the question whether adequate redress was introduced in the meantime.” [71a] (p25)
16.46 A report ‘Human Rights Defenders in Turkey’ by Kerim Yildiz and Claire Brigham for the Kurdish Human Rights Project and the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales reported that:
“The treatment of HRDs in Turkey can be a gauge by which the reform process, and Turkey’s long term commitment to democratisation, can be evaluated. The conclusion of this publication, researched and drafted in September 2005, is that while externally the reform process has initiated a great many positive and commendable changes to Turkey’s legal system, an internal shift in the state’s attitude towards HRDs has yet to take place… In the intervening months since KHRP conducted this research, criminal prosecutions have continued to be instigated against HRDs. Free expression is being stifled by the pursuit of spurious prosecutions against journalists, politicians and academics who put forward opinions considered too unpalatable by the Turkish authorities. Ironically, the justification for many of the prosecutions has been provisions under the amended Turkish penal code, revised in 2005, with the stated aim to bolster the protection for free expression.” [6b]