The applicants , whose names appear in the appendix , are NORP nationals . They currently live in GPE . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , Mr LOC and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

The facts of the cases , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE and GPE respectively , hamlets of the GPE village , in the GPE district in GPE , where they own property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE and GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicants filed petitions with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following response to the applicants :

“ It is established by the decision of ORG of DATE that your village was burned down by terrorists . Therefore there is no basis to start an investigation against the state officers .

Your petition will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a hamlet of the GPE , in the GPE district in GPE .

It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate attesting his ownership of property in GPE .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to the LOC village in the GPE district , where they currently live .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that another person , PERSON , appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicants filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

Until DATE the applicant lived in ORG , a village of the GPE district in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in ORG bear the applicant ’s father - in - law ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and her family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

On DATE District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

Until DATE the applicant lived in ORG , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that his father PERSON appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE the office of ORG office in GPE sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in the district of Bağcılar in GPE to be referred to the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in ORG , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where she owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant stated in her application that the property in question is registered in the name of her husband ’s brother . The applicant further stated that she owns property which is registered in the name of her father , in a neighbouring village , GPE .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

Until DATE the applicant lived in ORG , a village of the GPE district in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in ORG bear his father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to the GPE , in the district of GPE , where they currently live .

In DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to benefit from the pre - fabricated housing units that would be built .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to benefit from the prefabricated housing units has been received . However , the new houses will be used by those who are already residents in prefabricated buildings .

Your petition will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG received the applicant ’s petition .

On DATE the applicant was notified about the response of ORG by a police officer . ORG informed the applicant that returning to his village , GPE , was forbidden and his petition would be considered under the “ Return to GPE . The applicant did not receive a written copy of the ORG ’s response .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that another person , PERSON , appears to be the owner of the property in question on the document submitted to the ORG .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with ORG requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Return to the GPE village is forbidden for security reasons . However , you can return and reside in GPE , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , NORP and NORP villages .

Furthermore , your petition will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in GPE bear his father ’s name .

On an unknown date the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate attesting his ownership of property in GPE .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to LOC , in the district of GPE , where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicant filed a petition with ORG requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE the applicant was notified about the response of ORG by a state officer . ORG informed the applicant that his petition would be considered under the “ Return to GPE . The applicant did not receive a written copy of the ORG ’s response .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that on the documents submitted to the ORG , other persons with the family name “ PERSON appear to be the owners of the property in question .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of ORG in GPE , in accordance with LAW b and ı of Decree no . CARDINAL and the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants ( Memurin Muhakematı GPE ) .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicants used in GPE bear their father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicants lodged petitions with ORG in GPE to be referred to ORG in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to the GPE district of the NORP province where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of ORG in GPE , in accordance with LAW b and ı of Decree no . CARDINAL and the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting information about the proceedings concerning the burning down of his house in DATE and permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a hamlet of the PERSON village , in the GPE district in GPE , where she owns property . It is to be noted that another person , ORG , appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and her family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with ORG in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following response to the applicant :

“ Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

The applicant is a retired worker who is originally from Cevizlidere , a village of the GPE district in GPE and who resides in GPE . Although he was not a permanent resident of Cevizlidere , the applicant used to spend his holidays in his house in the village , prior to the evacuation of the village . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate to the ORG attesting his ownership of property in Cevizlidere .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Cevizlidere on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property .

On DATE the applicant sent a petition to the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village and reside there .

On DATE the Governor ’s office in GPE received the applicant ’s petition .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in Cevizlidere , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Cevizlidere on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of ORG in GPE , in accordance with LAW b and ı of Decree no . CARDINAL and the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE decided to discontinue the investigation into the applicant ’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

In DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate to the ORG attesting his ownership of property in GPE .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to LOC where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Tepsili on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

Until DATE the applicants lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicants used in Tepsili bear their father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Tepsili on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE where they currently live .

Following the incidents the applicants lodged petitions with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of their houses by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG responded the applicants stating that there would not be an investigation into their allegations , as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicants filed petitions with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

Until DATE the applicants lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that another person , PERSON , appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG by PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE CARDINAL of the applicants , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON filed petitions with the FAC Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to PERSON and PERSON :

On DATE ORG lodged a petition with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

His petition was received by this office on DATE .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE PERSON received the above - mentioned response from ORG of the GPE office in GPE .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a hamlet of the GPE village , in the GPE district in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the porperty that the applicant used in LOC bear his father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON and the surrounding hamlets on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to ORG where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON and the surrounding hamlets on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to NORP where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of her house by security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of ORG in GPE , in accordance with LAW b and ı of Decree no . CARDINAL and the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE decided to discontinue the investigation into the applicant ’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the office of ORG office in GPE sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following response to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the GPE ’s Governor ’s office . It is possible to reside in LOC . Returning to your village is at your discretion . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a hamlet of the NORP village , in the GPE district in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON and the surrounding hamlets on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE and ORG .

The applicant received no response to his petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate attesting his ownership of property in GPE .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his father ’s name .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ ... Return to Aktaş village is forbidden for security reasons . However , you can return and reside in GPE , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , NORP and NORP villages .

Furthermore , your petition will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ ... ”

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where they own property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicant and their families then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicants filed petitions with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that other persons , ORG and ORG , appear to be the owner of the property in question according to the documents submitted to the ORG .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Şahverdi on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Şahverdi on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of ORG in GPE , in accordance with LAW b and ı of Decree no . CARDINAL and the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that no investigation into his allegations would be initiated , as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the same office repeating his initial request .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that other persons , PERSON and ORG , appear to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE his petition was received by this office .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate attesting his ownership of property in GPE .

In DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of ORG office in GPE , in accordance with LAW b and ı of Decree no . CARDINAL and the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant ’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant lodged petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE and the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE his petitions were received by these offices .

The applicant received no response to his petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where PERSON owns property that the applicants used collectively .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicants lodged petitions with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of their houses by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of ORG in GPE , in accordance with LAW b and ı of Decree no . CARDINAL and the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants .

On DATE ORG sent letters to the applicants stating that no investigation into their allegations would be initiated , as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On an unknown date PERSON filed a petition with the GPE office requesting permission to benefit from the pre - fabricated housing units that would be built .

On an unknown date the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply PERSON :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to benefit from the prefabricated housing units has been received . However , the new houses will be used by those who are already residents in prefabricated buildings .

Your petition will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE PERSON lodged petitions with ORG and with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE his petition was received by ORG .

He received no response to his petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE PERSON lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE his petition was received by this office .

He received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that no investigation into his allegations would be initiated , as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to PERSON , another village of GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of ORG in GPE , in accordance with LAW b and ı of Decree no . CARDINAL and the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear her husband ’s name . The applicant ’s husband died in DATE .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and her family then moved to the ORG province , where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and her family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate attesting his ownership of property in PERSON .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

“ Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicants lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where they own property .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Buzlutepe , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE ORG lodged a petition with ORG requesting to be employed and to be provided with government aid as he had had to leave PERSON after the evacuation of the village .

On DATE the office of the Prime Minister sent a letter to the applicant , notifying the applicant that his petition was transmitted to the Governor ’s office in GPE .

On DATE ORG lodged petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE and the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village . He also requested a loan to reconstruct his houses .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to PERSON :

On DATE the applicants lodged further petitions with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE this office received their petitions .

The applicants received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Buzlutepe , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

In DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of ORG in GPE , in accordance with LAW b and ı of Decree no . CARDINAL and the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant ’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Buzlutepe , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ ... You can return and reside in GPE , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , NORP and NORP villages .

Furthermore , your petition will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On an unknown date the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to benefit from the pre - fabricated housing units that would be built .

On an unknown date the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to benefit from the prefabricated housing units has been received . However , the new houses will be used by those who are already residents in prefabricated buildings .

Your petition will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

“ Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Buzlutepe , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , another village of GPE , where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On an unknown date in DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a further petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE repeating his initial request .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicants lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE . It is to be noted that ORG did not submit any certificate attesting his ownership of property in PERSON and that the title deeds to the property that PERSON and PERSON used in PERSON bear their father ’s name . It is also to be noted that the title deeds to the property that PERSON used in PERSON bear his father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE PERSON , on an unknown date PERSON filed petitions with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE PERSON , ORG PERSON and PERSON lodged petitions with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

PERSON and PERSON received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to PERSON , PERSON and ORG :

Until DATE the applicants lived in PERSON , a hamlet of the GPE village in GPE , in GPE where PERSON owns property that the applicants used collectively .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicants lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of their houses by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of ORG in GPE , in accordance with LAW b and ı of Decree no . CARDINAL and the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants .

On DATE ORG sent letters to the applicants stating that no investigation into their allegations would be initiated , as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicants lodged petitions with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district , in GPE where he owns property . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in GPE bear his father ’s name .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to the Elazığ province , where they currently live .

In DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in GPE bear his father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered within the context of ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged further petitions with the District Governor ’s office in GPE and the Governor ’s office in GPE repeating his initial request .

He received no response to his petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district and in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that on the documents submitted to the ORG other persons appear to be the owners of the property in question , in relation to the applications of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . It is also to be noted that the title deeds to the property that ORG used in GPE bear his grandfather ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE and NORP , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE , GPE and ORG where they currently live .

In DATE PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG , PERSON and ORG lodged petitions with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of their houses by the security forces .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE decided not to conduct an investigation into the ORG allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On an unknown date PERSON and PERSON ( DATE ) filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE PERSON and PERSON lodged further petitions with the GPE office in GPE repeating the same request .

They received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

In the meantime on DATE PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and ORG applied to the FAC Governor ’s office in GPE and requested permission to return to their village . They were told by a police officer that their petitions would not be registered and that they would not be replied . The applicants drafted a note on this statement . This note is attached to the applicants’ applications to the ORG . The applicants did not submit any official document to the ORG certifying the statement made by the police officer in question .

On an unknown date PERSON filed a petition with ORG requesting permission to return to his village .

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and has been considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . You can return and reside in your village . ”

On an unknown date PERSON ( DATE ) filed a petition with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE he received the following response from the ORG of the District Governor ’s office in GPE :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the state of ORG of the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent him the following reply :

On an unknown date PERSON filed a petition with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent him the following reply :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by theDistrict Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . Besides , returning to your village is at your discretion . ”

On an unknown date ORG filed a petition with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

Upon a further petition with ORG by ORG , on DATE the GPE office in GPE sent him the following reply :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office . As the Yarımkaya village is secure and economically suitable for residence , you can return and reside in your village . ”

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with the GPE office in GPE and the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE he received the following reply from this office :

“ The Project ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation in ORG and LOC - eastern ORG is developed by the LOC - eastern ORG ( GAP Bölge GPE PERSON ) . It aims to provide the re - settlement of any inhabitants who unwillingly left their land due to various reasons , particularly terrorist incidents and who now intend to return to secure collective settlement units , since the number of the terrorist incidents have relatively decreased in the region . The ORG also aims to create sustainable living standards in the re - settlement areas .

In this context , your petition has been taken into consideration and your request will be responded when it is possible to return to the villages . ”

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following letter to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been referred to the Governor ’s office . You can return and reside in GPE , Karaca , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON villages . Furthermore , your petition will be considered under the ‘ Return to GPE Project’ . ”

On DATE some of the applicants , namely , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and ORG with CARDINAL other ORG inhabitants decided to return to their village . They were stopped by gendarmerie officers on their way to ORG and were told that it was not allowed to go to the village for security reasons . The applicants drafted a note on this refusal . This note is attached to the applicants’ applications to the ORG . The applicants did not submit any official document to the ORG certifying the refusal of the gendarmerie officers .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in Çalbaşı bear his father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Çalbaşı , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicants and his family moved to the NORP district of GPE . They then moved to the GPE , where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ ... The struggle against terrorism in our region has been continuing intensively and positive result is being achieved .

Our government has been working on the solutions to the problems you have mentioned in your petition and you will be informed by the District Governor ’s office when it is possible to return to the villages ... ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE repeating his initial request .

The applicant received no response to his petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in NORP requesting permission to return to his village .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the NORP district , in GPE where he owns property .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE he received the following reply from this office :

“ The ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation in ORG and LOC - eastern GPE Project’ was developed by the LOC - eastern ORG ( GAP Bölge GPE PERSON ) . It aims to provide the re - settlement of any inhabitants who unwillingly left their land due to various reasons , particularly terrorist incidents and who now intend to return to secure collective settlement units , since the number of the terrorist incidents have relatively decreased in the region . The ORG also aims to create sustainable living standards in the re - settlement areas .

In this context , your petition has been taken into consideration and your request will be responded when it is possible to return to the villages . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

Until DATE the applicants lived in PERSON , a village of the NORP district , in GPE where they own property . It is to be noted that other persons with the name “ PERSON ” appear to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to PERSON where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicants lodged petitions with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE the applicants received the following reply from this office :

“ ... The ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation in ORG and LOC - eastern ORG was developed by the LOC - eastern ORG ( GAP Bölge GPE PERSON ) . It aims to provide the re - settlement of any inhabitants who unwillingly left their land due to various reasons , particularly terrorist incidents and who now intend to return to secure collective settlement units , since the number of the terrorist incidents have relatively decreased in the region . The ORG also aims to create sustainable living standards in the re - settlement areas .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the NORP district , in GPE where he owns property . It is to be noted that other persons with the name “ LOC appear to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor ’s office in NORP requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE this office received his petition .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

“ ... The Project ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation in NORP and LOC - eastern ORG is developed by the LOC - eastern ORG ( GAP Bölge GPE PERSON ) . It aims to provide the re - settlement of any inhabitants who unwillingly left their land due to various reasons , particularly terrorist incidents and who now intend to return to secure collective settlement units , since the number of the terrorist incidents have relatively decreased in the region . The ORG also aims to create sustainable living standards in the re - settlement areas .

On DATE the applicants lodged further petitions with the same office repeating their initial requests .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the applicants the same reply as of DATE .

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE where PERSON owns property that the applicants used collectively .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicants lodged petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE to be referred to the Governor ’s office in GPE . They received no response to their petitions .

On DATE the applicants lodged further petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE repeating their initial requests .

They received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that to the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his father ’s name .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE , on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged petitions with the District Governor ’s office in GPE and with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following response to the applicant :

In this context , your petition has been taken into consideration and your request will be responded when it is possible to return to the villages . ”

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

On an unknown date the applicants filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project . ”

They received no response to their second petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicants used in PERSON bear their grandfather ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicants lodged petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON filed further petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE repeating their initial request .

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in Hozat repeating his initial request .

On DATE PERSON , PERSON , PERSON received the following reply from the FAC Governor ’s office in GPE :

PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to PERSON , where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE and requested to be housed .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE rejected the applicant ’s request , stating that he did not possess the conditions required by LAW , no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE this office received his petition .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear her husband ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and her family then moved to PERSON , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

She received no response to her petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE rejected the applicant ’s request , stating that he did not have the conditions required by LAW , no . CARDINAL .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE repeating his initial request .

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that they used in GPE bear the name of PERSON brother - in - law , PERSON , who is the uncle of the other applicants .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On an unknown date PERSON and GPE lodged petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

On DATE the applicants filed further petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE repeating their initial requests .

The applicants received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE this office received his petition .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE where PERSON owns property that the applicants used collectively .

On an unknown date PERSON filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE and requested to be housed .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE rejected his request , stating that he did not have the conditions required by LAW , no . CARDINAL .

On an unknown date the applicants lodged petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE where she owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and her family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

On DATE this office received the applicant ’s petition .

The applicant received no response to her petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to PERSON , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed petitions with the Prime Minister ’s office , ORG office and the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting government aid , as he had had to leave PERSON after the evacuation of the village .

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE where he owns property .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE this office sent the following reply to the applicant :

In this context , your petition has been taken into consideration and your request will be responded when it is possible to return to the villages . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE repeating his initial request .

On DATE this office received his petition .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his grandfather ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE repeating his initial request .

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE where PERSON owns property that the applicants used collectively .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicants filed petitions with the Prime Minister ’s office , ORG office and the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting government aid , as they had had to leave PERSON after the evacuation of the village .

The Prime Minister ’s office received the ORG petitions on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE respectively .

ORG office received the ORG petitions on DATE and on DATE respectively .

The Governor ’s office in GPE received the ORG petitions on DATE and on DATE respectively .

The applicants received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE PERSON lodged a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE PERSON lodged a further petition with the same office requesting permission to return to his village .

They received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his brother ’s name .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

He received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his grandfather ’s name .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE where he owns property .

On DATE the applicant received the following reply from the District Governor ’s office in GPE :

In this context , your petition has been taken into consideration and your request will be responded when it is possible to return to the villages . ”

On DATE the applicant filed petitions with the Prime Minister ’s office , ORG office and the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting government aid , as he had had to leave PERSON after the evacuation of the village . On DATE the Prime Minister ’s office received the applicant ’s petition .

The applicant received no response to his petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE where she owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and her family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE and requested to be housed

On DATE the GPE office in GPE rejected her request , stating that she did not have the conditions required by LAW , no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG requesting expropriation of her property in GPE .

On DATE the Governor ’s office in GPE refused the applicant ’s request stating that there was no legal ground for expropriation of the applicant ’s property .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged another petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE rejected his request , stating that he did not have the conditions required by LAW , no . CARDINAL .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces in DATE .

On DATE ORG in Hozat sent a letter to the applicant stating that no investigation into his allegations would be initiated , as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

In DATE the applicant lodged a further petition with ORG office in GPE repeating his initial complaint .

On DATE ORG in GPE decided to discontinue the proceedings , as there was not sufficient evidence establishing that security forces had committed the offence in question .

On DATE the applicant received the following reply from the District Governor ’s office in GPE :

In this context , your petition has been taken into consideration and your request will be responded when it is possible to return to the villages . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE repeating his request as of DATE .

He received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his father ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to PERSON , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE his petition was received by this office .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the NORP district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his grandfather ’s name .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE repeating his initial request .

The official records indicated that the inhabitants of the villages of GPE had evacuated their places of living on account of intense terrorist activities in the region and threats issued by the ORG ( Workers’ ORG ) terrorist organisation against the villagers . The security forces had not forced the applicants to leave their village .

Currently there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages . Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and regaining their activities in their villages .

On DATE the Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism was passed by ORG and entered into force on DATE ( “ Compensation Law ” ) . That PERSON provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the LAW grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their villages .

In that connection Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions were set up in QUANTITY provinces . Persons who had suffered damage as a result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation commission claiming compensation .

The number of persons applying to these commissions had already attained CARDINAL . CARDINAL persons , whose applications were pending before the ORG , had also applied to the compensation commissions . Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the ORG ’s decision of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and in its judgment of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-VI ) .


The applicants are CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ) NORP farmers . They are represented by the first applicant , Mr PERSON , a NORP national living in GPE region .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicants are farmers who produce grain , milk and meat . They submit that during DATE they were entitled to ORG subsidies the conditions of payment of which were provided for by the relevant orders of the Minister of Agriculture of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( see the ‘ Relevant domestic law and practice ORG below ) .

The applicants submit that subsidies for DATE should have been calculated and paid by ORG every month of DATE , upon presentation by a farmer of the evidence of his having sold grain , milk or meat to food - processing companies . The Government deny that the authorities had been required to examine and satisfy every application for subsidies for DATE on a DATE or other basis , the impugned orders establishing no time - limits in this respect ( see below ) .

During DATE , regardless of the proof of the applicants’ selling their production , ORG did not examine their applications for subsidies .

In DATE and DATE the applicants submit that they applied to courts , requesting ORG to calculate and pay DATE subsidies for DATE . The applicants have submitted no evidence as to how many of them did apply to the courts in this respect . They have presented CARDINAL case , involving a group of CARDINAL applicants , concerning the claim against ORG in this connection :

On DATE ORG rejected the claim of the CARDINAL applicants , having found no fault in the actions of ORG . The court established that subsidies for DATE were not calculated and paid by ORG during DATE . However , the court held that ORG was in no fault in this respect . It was established that as a result of the ORG decree of DATE the payment of subsidies for DATE was postponed until DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal submitted by ORG , CARDINAL person belonging to the group of the CARDINAL applicants . ORG held that in DATE there had been no statute requiring ORG to calculate and pay subsidies DATE , the authorities being free to delay the calculation and payment thereof .

In DATE ORG paid CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL ) to satisfy the applications for subsidies submitted in DATE .

According to the legal provisions applicable at the material time , subsidies for grain for DATE were to be paid on the basis of the order made by the Minister of Agriculture of DATE . Subsidies for meat and milk were to be paid on the basis of his orders of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Government adopted a decree whereby it decided that all the remaining applications for subsidies for DATE were to be examined until DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 34;No violation of Art. 34

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE the administration of Penitentiary no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , where the applicant was serving a prison sentence at the time , submitted to ORG of ORG a list of prisoners , with their former NORP passports , who , following the collapse of GPE in DATE , had expressed a wish to become NORP citizens . The applicant 's name was among them .

A stamp reading “ Annulled ” was put in the applicant 's old NORP passport .

According to a letter written on an unspecified date by the administration of Penitentiary no . CARDINAL to the applicant , the latter acquired NORP citizenship in DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was detained on suspicion of attempted murder and robbery . According to him , he was beaten in police custody . On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of all of his personal property following his conviction for these offences .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's cassation appeal against this conviction . However , it reduced the sentence to DATE imprisonment .

Shortly after the ruling of ORG , the applicant was transferred to Penitentiary no . CARDINAL in the GPE region to serve his sentence .

NORP In DATE the applicant complained to the prosecution authorities about his alleged ill - treatment during the pre - trial investigation in DATE . In reply , he was informed that his complaint had been lodged too late and could not be investigated given the considerable lapse of time and that all the relevant documents had been destroyed .

During DATE and DATE the applicant unsuccessfully sought the overturning of his conviction through an extraordinary review procedure .

In DATE the applicant was released on parole .

On DATE a forensic psychiatric examination was held to establish whether the applicant could be held criminally liable for the charges brought against him . Along with finding the applicant sane , it noted that he had complained of pain in his legs , weakened eyesight and dizziness , had painless concussion caused by a past head injury , had a diminished ankle reflex , and suffered from encephalopathy , a degenerative disease of the brain , caused by a trauma and atherosclerosis .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a group of disability experts in Penitentiary no . CARDINAL and recognised as falling into the “ second category ” of invalidity for a DATE period on account of stable moderate hypertension , hypertensive retinal angiopathy of both eyes , ischaemic heart disease , stable stenocardia , diffuse cardiosclerosis , GPE 's syndrome , cerebral atherosclerosis , phaco - sclerosis ( cataracts ) , and chronic hepato - cholecystitis ( inflammation of the gall bladder and liver ) .

From DATE the applicant underwent inpatient treatment in ORG at SIZO-CARDINAL for obliterating atherosclerosis of the lower limbs , femoropopliteal occlusive disease ( obstruction of the arteries ) , lower limb ischaemia , stable stenocardia and diffuse cardiosclerosis , after which he returned to Penitentiary no . CARDINAL “ in a satisfactory condition ” and continued his treatment in the penitentiary hospital .

In DATE the applicant complained to the prosecution authorities that although , according to him , he suffered from certain illnesses which he believed made him eligible for early release , on DATE the medical experts had wrongly established his diagnoses because they were biased against him . He requested another medical examination to be held in any other region . The prosecution found the applicant 's complaint unsubstantiated . ORG of ORG ( hereinafter “ the SDES ” ) offered him the opportunity to undergo another medical examination by independent doctors in the GPE region , which he refused .

On DATE the SDES informed the applicant , following his request , that there were no medical reasons to seek his early release before the court and that he was being “ provided medical treatment in accordance with the established diagnoses ” . The applicant commented that it was not the medical treatment that he was complaining about , but the alleged inaccuracy of his medical diagnoses , due to which he had not been qualified for early release on health grounds .

According to the information provided by the applicant , in DATE the prison doctors treated him for atherosclerosis of the lower limbs with nicotinic acid injections , which he found to be of little help . The applicant alleged that the treatment was insufficient and therefore , following his release in DATE , he was in need of surgery .

On DATE a GPE sonography of the applicant 's lower limbs was performed in ORG no . CARDINAL , which diagnosed him with blockage of the left and right iliac arteries .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the ORG expressing his intention to lodge an application under LAW .

On DATE ORG provided him with a blank application form and copies of the explanatory documents necessary for lodging his application with the ORG .

On DATE the Registry received from the applicant the application form dated DATE , in which he maintained that he was unable to send copies of all the documents he needed to substantiate his complaints as the penitentiary authorities had allegedly refused to provide him with those copies .

In a letter of DATE ORG informed the applicant that under LAW are under an obligation not to create obstacles to the effective exercise of the right of individual petition . The letter also stated that the refusal of the prison administration to provide copies of the relevant documents could be examined by ORG from the point of view of compliance of its acts with the obligations of the ORG under LAW . The letter also contained a copy of Order no . CARDINAL of the SDES of DATE “ On Approval of ORG and Pre - trial ORG ” .

On DATE and CARDINAL May CARDINAL the applicant informed the ORG that the penitentiary authorities had refused to hand the attachment sent by ORG with the letter of DATE over to him . He further stated that he still did not have access to copies of all the documents he needed .

The applicant complained about the above to the prosecution authorities .

On DATE , following the communication by ORG to the Government , the applicant , at the request of the prison administration , wrote “ an explanatory note ” , in which he noted , inter alia : that starting from “ mid CARDINAL ” he had been provided with the possibility to copy documents from his case file by hand ; that the attachment sent by ORG had never been served on him ; and that he had no complaints regarding the dispatching of his correspondence to the ORG by the prison authorities .

According to the applicant , he was able to copy documents from his case file by hand twice a week for TIME .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was represented before the ORG by a lawyer .

On DATE the Prosecutor of the Dnipropetrovsk Region found unsubstantiated the applicant 's complaint concerning the seizure by the prison administration of the attachment sent to him by the ORG . The prosecutor referred to ORG December CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , according to which convicts were entitled to keep copies of verdicts and judicial rulings . Thus , since the document at issue had been outside that category , its seizure did not amount to a violation on the part of the prison administration .

On DATE the applicant received the attachment at issue from the prison administration .

On DATE ORG reaffirmed its earlier finding that by having seized the above document , the prison administration had not committed any violation .

The applicant alleged that on DATE the prison duty officer had beaten him with a rubber truncheon , which had resulted in his hospitalisation in the penitentiary hospital on DATE . According to him , the prison doctor had refused to document his injuries .

In DATE the applicant complained to the SDES that DATE over QUANTITY prisoners had allegedly died of starvation in Penitentiary no . CARDINAL .

ORG of the SDES replied to the applicant that his allegation had been investigated and found unsubstantiated .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ Everyone is guaranteed privacy of mail , telephone conversations , telegraph and other correspondence . Exceptions shall be established only by a court in cases envisaged by law , with the purpose of preventing crime or ascertaining the truth in the course of the investigation of a criminal case , if it is not possible to obtain information by other means . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code on Enforcement of Sentences ( DATE ) , following the amendments introduced to it on DATE , stipulates that prisoners are allowed to correspond with relatives , other persons and organisations . All such correspondence is subject to automatic monitoring and censorship by the prison administration , with the following exceptions , provided for in paragraph CARDINAL :

“ Proposals , applications and complaints addressed to the Ombudsman of the Verkhovna Rada of GPE , to ORG , as well as to other relevant international organisations of which GPE is a member or participant , to authorised persons of those international organisations or to prosecution authorities , shall not be subject to censorship and shall be dispatched within TIME . ”

ORG and Pre - trial ORG , approved by Order no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE , elaborates the above provision as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ... Correspondence of prisoners and detainees with the Ombudsman of the Verkhovna Rada of GPE , ORG , as well as with other relevant international organisations of which GPE is a member or participant , authorised persons of those international organisations or prosecution authorities , shall not be subject to censorship and shall be dispatched or handed to the prisoner or detainee within TIME . ...

Prisoners or detainees shall personally and in the presence of the inspector seal the envelopes with correspondence addressed to the Ombudsman of the Verkhovna Rada of GPE , ORG , as well as to other relevant international organisations of which GPE is a member or participant , to authorised persons of those international organisations or prosecution authorities . Prisoners or detainees shall personally and in the presence of the inspector open letters received from the Ombudsman of the Verkhovna Rada of GPE , ORG , as well as from other relevant international organisations of which GPE is a member or participant , from authorised persons of those international organisations or from prosecution authorities . ... ”

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW , approved by Order no . CARDINAL of ORG dated DATE , read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ... Prisoners are entitled ... to receive and send letters in unlimited numbers . ...

Prisoners may only dispatch letters and applications via the penitentiary 's administration . There are mail boxes on the premises of the penitentiary for that purpose , which are checked by the responsible prison officers on a DATE basis . Prisoners in confinement hand letters for dispatching to the administration .

Letters shall be posted in mail boxes or handed to representatives of the administration unsealed . ...

Correspondence received or dispatched by prisoners shall be reviewed .

Proposals , applications and complaints addressed to the Ombudsman of the Verkhovna Rada of GPE , to a prosecutor or to ORG shall not be subject to review and shall be dispatched within TIME . ”

The ORG also allow prisoners to keep with them copies of verdicts and rulings of the courts concerning their case .

According to LAW ( DATE ) , prosecutors supervise the enforcement of sentences with a view to ensuring compliance with the existing legislation .

The relevant provisions of the Law on the Prosecution Service ( DATE , as amended ) are summarised in PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE .

Pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( which entered into force on DATE ) , administrative courts are competent to examine inter alia claims by individuals against authorities concerning the latter 's decisions , actions or omissions . Its paragraph CARDINAL excludes from the competence of the administrative courts public - law cases dealt with by ORG , disputes adjudicated under the criminal procedure , cases concerning administrative offences , and those concerning the internal activity of corporate entities .

According to Article CARDINAL of LAW , the administrative court , should it find an administrative claim substantiated , may inter alia declare the impugned action , omission or decision unlawful , invalidate the decision in question and/or oblige the defendant to undertake , or abstain from taking , certain actions . It may also order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage caused by the unlawful action , omission or decision .

The relevant extracts from LAW read as follows :

“ Human and citizens ' rights and freedoms are protected by the courts .

Everyone is guaranteed the right to challenge in court the decisions , actions or omissions of bodies exercising ORG power , local self - government bodies , officials and officers ...

... After exhausting all domestic legal remedies , everyone has the right of appeal for the protection of his or her rights and freedoms to the relevant international judicial institutions or to the relevant bodies of international organisations of which GPE is a member or participant ... ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW in Proceedings of ORG reads as follows :

The Contracting Parties shall respect the right of the persons referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of this Agreement to correspond freely with the Commission and the ORG .

As regards persons under detention , the exercise of this right shall in particular imply that :

a ) if their correspondence is examined by the competent authorities , its despatch and delivery shall nevertheless take place without undue delay and without alteration ;

b ) such persons shall not be subject to disciplinary measures in any form on account of any communication sent through the proper channels to the ORG or the ORG ;

c ) such persons shall have the right to correspond , and consult out of hearing of other persons , with a lawyer qualified to appear before the courts of the country where they are detained in regard to an application to the ORG , or any proceedings resulting therefrom .

NORP In application of the preceding paragraphs , there shall be no interference by a public authority except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a NORP society in the interests of national security , for the detection or prosecution of a criminal offence or for the protection of health .