003-5645094-7147334

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     16.11.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF BİLGİN v. TURKEY   In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 16 November 2000 in the case of İhsan Bilgin v.   Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously:   that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading   treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights;   that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)   and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property);   that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy);   that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) or Article   (limitation on use of restrictions on Convention rights); and   that Turkey had failed to comply with their obligations under former Article 25 § 1   (not to hinder right to make individual application; now replaced by Article 34) of the   Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded, unanimously, the   applicant 22,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. It also   awarded, unanimously, GBP 21,500 for legal costs and expenses less the amount awarded for   legal aid by the Council of Europe.   1. Principal facts   The applicant, İhsan Bilgin, a Turkish national, was born in 1960 and currently lives in   Batman (Turkey).   The applicant alleged that in 1993 and 1994, gendarmes, under the orders and responsibility   of the Çatakköprü gendarmerie station commander and the Silvan District gendarmerie   station commander, damaged the fittings, furniture and household goods in his house in the   hamlet of Yukarıgören near to the village of Güzderesi (Silvan district of Diyarbakır   province) and that eventually his house was burned. In support of his account, the applicant   submitted various photographs and documents.   According to the Government, there were many PKK activities in the area concerned at the   material time and it was regularly patrolled by gendarme forces. However, no operation had   been conducted in or around Güzderesi during this period. The Government further   submitted, although the applicant had not filed an official complaint with the domestic   authorities, that an investigation of the applicant’s allegations had been conducted which   resulted in a decision of 4 June 1998 by the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council   concluding that there was insufficient evidence in support of the applicant’s allegations.   - 2 -   2. Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 March   1994. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 21   October 1999 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of   Article 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 3 and Article 13 of the   Convention, and that there had been no violation of Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention.   The Commission further held that Turkey had failed to comply with their obligations under   former Article 25 of the Convention. It referred the case to the Court on 30 October 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   András Baka (Hungarian), President,   Benedetto Conforti (Italian),   Giovanni Bonello (Maltese),   Peer Lorenzen (Danish),   Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger),   Anatoly Kovler (Russian),   Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge,   and also Erik Fribergh, Section Registrar.   3. Summary of the judgment1   Complaints   The applicant complained that the destruction by gendarmes of his home and possessions   violated his right to respect for his private and family life and home as guaranteed by Article   8, as well as his property rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He also   complained that this treatment was so serious that it amounted to inhuman and degrading   treatment contrary to Article 3.   Complaining that allegations of unlawful acts committed by security forces in south-east   Turkey are not or not adequately investigated, the applicant further alleged that he had no   effective remedy as guaranteed by Article 13.   The applicant also complained that the destruction of his home and possessions illustrated the   discriminatory policy, prohibited by Article 14, which is pursued by the Turkish authorities   against persons of Kurdish origin and the existence of an authorised practice disclosing   restrictions on Convention rights imposed for ulterior purposes and therefore contrary to   Article 18.   The applicant finally complained that his right of unhindered petition, guaranteed by former   Article 25 of the Convention, was disrespected in that, after he had filed his application with   the Commission, he had been taken to the Çatakköprü gendarmerie station where he was   questioned about this application and was forced to sign a statement purporting to retract it.   1. This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.   - 3 -   Decision of the Court   The Court’s assessment of the facts   The Court noted that the Commission had carried out a hearing of witnesses in this case.   With the exception of one factual element, i.e. whether or not the gendarmes of the   Çatakköprü gendarmerie station were assisted by other security forces on 13 October 1993, as   established by the Commission but contradicted by a fresh complete copy of the gendarmerie   duty ledger for the day in question, submitted by the Government, the Court accepted the   facts as established by the Commission. The Court found no grounds in the arguments   advanced by the Turkish Government for holding that the Commission’s assessment of the   evidence was not in accordance with the established principles for assessing evidence under   the Convention system. It was accordingly established that security forces were responsible   for the destruction of the applicant’s home and possessions and that the loss of his home and   possessions, which deprived him of his livelihood, caused the applicant and his family to   abandon the hamlet where they had lived until then and to settle elsewhere.   Article 3 of the Convention   The Court found that the destruction of the applicant’s home and possessions by security   forces amounted to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. It held that,   even in the most difficult of circumstances, such as the fight against organised terrorism and   crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms treatment contrary to this provision. It   considered that, even assuming that the acts in question were carried out without any   intention of punishing the applicant but instead as a discouragement to others or to prevent   his home from being used by terrorists, this would not provide a justification for the treatment   complained of by the applicant. Noting the circumstances in which the applicant’s home and   possessions had been destroyed as well as his personal circumstances, the Court considered   that the destruction of the applicant’s home and possessions by security forces must have   caused him suffering of sufficient severity to categorise the acts complained of as inhuman.   Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Having established that security forces were responsible for the destruction of the applicant’s   home and possessions, the Court found violations of Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   Article 13 of the Convention   Referring to its reasoning in, amongst others, its judgment of 28 March 2000 in the case of   Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, the Court considered that the national authorities had been under an   obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the destruction of   the applicant’s home and possessions. The Court recalled that defects found in the   investigatory system in force in south-east Turkey undermined the effectiveness of criminal   law protection during the first half of the nineties which permitted or fostered a lack of   accountability of members of the security for their actions and that it had already previously   expressed serious doubts as to the ability of administrative authorities in south-east Turkey to   carry out an independent investigation.   - 4 -   Noting that the domestic investigation that was conducted in the applicant’s case appeared to   be limited in scope to the specific dates mentioned by the applicant, who is illiterate, without   considering the possibility that the alleged actions might have taken place on other dates and   the fact that relevant gendarmerie records had only been verified by the military authorities   themselves and not by the responsible public prosecutor, the Court concluded that no   effective investigation as required by Article 13 had been conducted.   Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention   As to the applicant’s complaint that the destruction of his home and possessions illustrated a   policy of discrimination against persons of Kurdish origin in violation of Article 14 and the   existence of an authorised practice contrary to Article 18, the Court did not find, on the basis   of the facts established, that there had been a violation of these two Articles.   Former Article 25 of the Convention   The Court recalled that in previous cases it had held that the questioning of applicants about   their application by the authorities may amount to a form of illicit and unacceptable pressure,   hindering the exercise of the right of individual petition in breach of former Article 25 of the   Convention. The applicant in this case had been taken to the Çatakköprü gendarmerie station,   where he was questioned about his application. This had apparently taken place on the   gendarmerie command’s own initiative as no instruction to this effect had been given by the   public prosecutor responsible for the investigation of the applicant’s allegations. The Court   held that such questioning by an official of those authorities allegedly directly responsible for   the events complained of in the application is incompatible with the effective operation of the   system of individual petition under the Convention. Consequently, the Court held that the   Turkish Government had failed to comply with their undertaking under former Article 25 of   the Convention.   Article 41 of the Convention   The Court awarded the applicant GBP 12,000 for pecuniary damages and GBP 10,000 for   non-pecuniary damage. For costs and expenses, it awarded GBP 21,500 less the amount   awarded for legal aid by the Council of Europe.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights   F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex   Contacts:Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with   alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998   a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time   Commission and Court.