CASE OF THE FORMER KING OF GREECE AND OTHERS v. GREECE

Violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 14+P1-1;Just satisfaction reserved

In DATE a crowned democracy was established in GPE , when PERSON , son of the NORP King PERSON , was elected PERSON and ascended the throne . The former King PERSON of GPE ( the first applicant ) is a direct descendant of King PERSON He ascended the NORP throne in DATE , at DATE , in succession to his father King Paul I.

The applicants have produced the following ownership titles relating to their property in GPE .

NORP The former King claimed that he was the owner of an area of QUANTITY m. of land and a building at ORG . This property was formed during the reign of ORG ( the first applicant 's great - grandfather ) through successive purchases of pieces of land .

– By deed no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , ORG I purchased from PERSON the PERSON - Mahonia estate and from PERSON 's wife the adjacent ORG estate , for a total of CARDINAL drachmas ( ORG ) .

– Under PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , ORG transferred in full and absolute ownership to ORG I the forest known as ORG , of CARDINAL sq . m. The applicants have produced documents which demonstrate that , while the NORP government had expressed the intention of donating the Bafi forest to ORG , the latter did not wish to acquire this land through a donation , but insisted on purchasing it at a price fixed by the government . In the event , a compromise was reached , whereby the Bafi forest was expressed to be “ conceded ” ( rather than “ donated ” ) to King PERSON In return , the latter deposited GRD CARDINAL with interest at ORG .

CARDINAL sq . QUANTITY of the above property were subsequently exchanged for a property of equal surface area adjacent to ORG , which belonged to local landowners , who were paid CARDINAL by King PERSON I to compensate for the difference in value between the exchanged properties .

– By deed no . DATE of DATE , King PERSON I purchased from PERSON a part of the PERSON estate , which is adjacent to the ORG estate , for GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

– By certificate no . CARDINAL of DATE , the mortgage registrar of ORG attests that the PERSON estate belonged to ORG I and was devolved to him by his predecessors in title , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . These persons had acquired the property in parts through successive purchases from DATE .

By his holograph will dated DATE , King PERSON I made the ORG estate a family trust ( familia - fideicommis ) in order to serve as a permanent residence of the reigning King of the GPE . However , according to the then prevailing NORP - Roman law , a family trust lasted only for CARDINAL successions , which meant that the trust was released in the fourth successor .

Following the death of King George I on DATE , ORG devolved to his successor , King PERSON I , and following the latter 's deposition from the throne in DATE , to his second - born son , PERSON . After the latter 's death in DATE , ORG came back to PERSON I , who had in the meantime returned to the throne . After the latter 's abdication in DATE , ORG passed to his first - born son , PERSON PERSON .

Then , following the abolition of the monarchy and the proclamation of the Republic by resolution of the fourth ORG dated CARDINAL DATE , ORG expropriated GPE by Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL and DATE , while the ORG estate passed ipso jure and without any compensation to the ORG .

Following the return of King PERSON to the throne , LAW of DATE gave ORG back to the King in full ownership and possession , with the exception of the ORG estate ( an area of CARDINAL sq . m. ) which , in the meanwhile , had been allotted to landless refugees . The explanatory report on this PERSON stated , inter alia , that the expropriation had been in breach of LAW , according to which a compulsory expropriation always had to be preceded by compensation to the owner in an amount to be determined by the courts .

After the death of PERSON on DATE , his brother PERSON came to the throne . Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL and DATE stated the following : “ The ORG estate , which was returned ... to the late King PERSON , has become the unreserved , free and exclusive property of FAC King PERSON from his accession to the throne ” . Following King PERSON 's death on DATE , the property came to his son and successor PERSON ( the first applicant ) , by virtue of his father 's holograph will dated DATE .

NORP The former King and Princess PERSON claimed that they each owned FAC of an area of QUANTITY m. of land at PERSON , and that Princess PERSON owned CARDINAL/CARDINAL of that area . This area was formed through the following chain of transfers .

– By deed no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON , a landowner of PERSON , transferred and sold to ORG PERSON I the estate known as PERSON , for the sum of GRD CARDINAL . Following the death of PERSON I , the estate devolved to his intestate heirs as follows : to his wife PERSON CARDINAL ab indivisio , and to each of his children PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( the third applicant ) and the daughter of his predeceased son PERSON , PERSON , CARDINAL ab indivisio .

– By deeds nos . DATE of CARDINAL DATE of CARDINAL DATE , the above co - heirs and co - owners ( with the exception of ORG ) transferred and sold CARDINAL ab indivisio of the estate to PERSON , a captain in the merchant navy , for the sum of GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . As regards the CARDINAL ab indivisio share of PERSON , a price of GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL was initially agreed and the land was leased to the new owner pending completion of the required formalities , whereupon the land would be transferred to him .

– By deed no . CARDINAL of DATE , PERSON and others formed the “ ORG ” ( PERSON ) , to which PERSON transferred the CARDINAL ab indivisio of the estate he had acquired . This company was dissolved by resolution of its general assembly dated CARDINAL DATE . By deed no . CARDINAL of DATE , the liquidators of the company transferred and sold to ORG the CARDINAL ab indivisio of the estate for the sum of GRD CARDINAL which was paid with funds from the dowry of his wife , Princess PERSON . After his death , CARDINAL of his share of PERSON devolved to his widow , and CARDINAL to each of his CARDINAL children , PERSON , PERSON ( the first applicant ) and PERSON ( the second applicant ) . In DATE Princess PERSON declined the inheritance , and her share of the estate was added to the share of the remaining heirs pro rata . After the death of Queen PERSON on DATE , and in the absence of a will , her CARDINAL ab indivisio share of PERSON devolved to her children in equal shares , each child thus receiving CARDINAL/CARDINAL of her share .

The original title on this property is minutes no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG , by which the ORG decided to offer to ORG , in recognition of his contribution to the accession of the NORP islands to GPE , the use of the house in which the NORP Magistrate of ORG once lived , together with the surrounding area , situated at the place known as “ Aghios Pandeleïmon of GPE . The existing records from that time do not indicate the surface area , exact location or boundaries of the donated estate . The donation was later expressly recognised by deed no . DATE .

DATE King PERSON I enlarged the above estate by successive purchases of certain smaller or bigger tracts of land belonging to third parties , situated around or inside the farm . After CARDINAL purchases made by PERSON , ORG attained its final surface area of QUANTITY . m.

Following the death of King George I , Mon Repos devolved to LOC , by virtue of ORG holograph will dated DATE .

After the CARDINAL Revolution and by decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the compulsory expropriation of ORG was proclaimed in favour of the ORG in order to be used as the DATE residence of the reigning King . In DATE the administrative eviction of LOC was ordered . Legal proceedings were then instituted and , by judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG ( PERSON ) recognised Prince PERSON as the lawful owner of the property and ordered the return of the estate to him . Following the restoration of the “ crowned democracy ” , Emergency PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL expressly provided that ORG be conceded and transferred in full ownership and possession to LOC .

NORP By deed no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , LOC sold ORG to King PERSON against a life annuity of GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . King PERSON died on CARDINAL April CARDINAL . His co - heirs donated their shares to ORG brother , PERSON , who acquired full ownership of ORG ( deeds nos . DATE , DATE and DATE ) . Following King PERSON 's death , and by virtue of his holograph will , ORG devolved to his widow PERSON ( usufruct ) and to his son , the first applicant ( bare ownership ) . The usufruct was terminated by the death of Queen PERSON on DATE , and the first applicant acquired full title ownership of ORG .

On or about CARDINAL DATE , following the enactment of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the residence of ORG was broken into . It is now occupied by the municipality of GPE .

On DATE there was a military coup in GPE . The former King remained in the country until DATE , when he left for GPE .

On DATE the military regime promulgated a new LAW ( the former had been enacted in DATE ) , which was amended in DATE when the former King was deposed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Article CARDINAL of LAW ( as amended in DATE ) guaranteed the right of property and provided that nobody was to be deprived of property save in the public interest and following payment of full compensation , the amount of which was to be determined by the civil courts . However , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the same LAW provided for the enactment of a unique legislative measure which would have the effect of confiscating the movable and immovable property of the former King and the royal family .

DATE and DATE the military dictatorship formally maintained the “ crowned democracy ” , despite the former ORG 's self - imposed exile .

On DATE the military regime purported to abolish the “ crowned democracy ” , to declare the former King and his heirs deposed and to establish a presidential parliamentary republic .

NORP In DATE the military dictatorship issued a legislative decree ( no . CARDINAL ) , pursuant to LAW ( as amended in DATE ) , whereby all movable and immovable property of the former King and the royal family was confiscated with effect from the date of publication of the decree in ORG ( DATE ) , and whereby title to the confiscated property passed to ORG . The CARDINAL estates in question were specifically mentioned as forming part of the immovable property being confiscated .

The above decree provided for compensation in the sum of GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be distributed amongst the members of the royal family whose property was to be confiscated , and this sum was deposited in a bank account with a view to being claimed by the royal family . The former ORG 's share of the compensation was stated to be GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL and Princess Irene 's share GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . No compensation was provided for PERSON . It was further specified that the compensation had to be claimed by DATE . No part of it was ever claimed .

On DATE the military dictatorship in GPE was replaced by a civilian government under the leadership of Mr PERSON .

By an Act of CARDINAL DATE ( “ LAW of DATE ” ) , the government revived LAW , except for the provisions relating to the form of government ( DATE ) .

Article CARDINAL of this Act provided that , until ORG was reconvened , the legislative power vested in ORG was to be exercised through legislative decrees . LAW provided that such legislative decrees would be capable of having retrospective effect as regards any issues arising from LAW after DATE . Article CARDINAL provided that LAW ( as amended ) , and all other LAW Acts or Acts of a constitutional character passed under the military dictatorship after DATE , were repealed .

Pursuant to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , the government issued a legislative decree ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) which provided for the property of the former ORG and the royal family to be administered and managed by a CARDINAL - member committee until the form of regime had been finally determined .

The above decree was implemented by CARDINAL ministerial decisions .

( i ) By decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , a CARDINAL - member committee was formed “ for the purposes of managing and administering the estate of the royal family ” .

( ii ) By decision no . DATE of CARDINAL DATE , it was provided that “ the handing over [ of the property ] of the royal family from the ORG to the committee ” was to be made by DATE .

( iii ) By decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , it was provided that the handing over of the property of the royal family to the committee would continue until completion , before the handing over to its owners or to a person nominated by them .

DATE all the movable and immovable property of the former King and the royal family in GPE was administered and managed in the name of the committee established pursuant to Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , on behalf of the former King and the royal family . In DATE the movable property was handed over to them .

On DATE there were elections to ORG , and the ORG was thereafter reconvened . A referendum was held on DATE , the outcome of which was in favour of a parliamentary republic . By Resolution DCARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , ORG resolved and declared , inter alia , that democracy in GPE was never lawfully abolished , and that the revolutionary coup of QUANTITY DATE , as well as the situation which resulted as a consequence up to DATE , constituted a coup d'état which aimed to usurp power and the sovereign rights of the people .

In DATE ORG enacted the present LAW , which came into force on DATE .

In DATE the PA.SO.K. ORG ) , under the leadership of PERSON , was elected to power in GPE . From DATE , discussions were held with the former King regarding his property . By DATE an agreement on principle had been reached between the government and the former King relating to the property and tax liabilities of the royal family . However , the agreement was never executed .

In DATE the conservative “ ORG was elected to power .

In DATE an agreement was reached between the former King and GPE , which provided as follows .

( i ) The former King transferred an area of QUANTITY . m. of his forest at ORG to ORG for the sum of GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

( ii ) NORP The former King donated an area of QUANTITY m. of his forest at ORG to a foundation for the benefit of the public , namely ORG .

( iii ) A foundation for the benefit of the public , namely ORG , was created and the former ORG donated an area of QUANTITY m. of his forest at ORG to the foundation .

( iv ) The former King , the royal family and ORG waived all legal rights in connection with and discontinued all pending legal proceedings concerning the royal family 's tax liabilities .

( v ) The former King and the royal family agreed to pay to ORG the sum of GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of inheritance tax , income tax and capital taxes , together with interest and surcharges . The payment to be made by the former King would be set off against any sums due to the former King pursuant to the agreement .

The agreement was contained in and evidenced by notarial deed no . DATE of DATE . On DATE ORG ( διεύθυvση PERSON ) of the NORP parliament issued a report on a draft bill ratifying the above - mentioned notarial act . The report stated , inter alia , that Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL was repealed by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and that the property thereby “ reverted to its former ownership status ” . Subsequently the agreement was incorporated in and given the force of law by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

NORP In DATE the former King and his family visited GPE .

Following the DATE elections , a government under the leadership of PERSON was again returned to power in GPE . The new government declared their intention of dealing with the matters relating to the property of the former royal family , in order to restore “ constitutional legality and historical memory ” and to satisfy “ the democratic sensibility of the NORP people as this was expressed by the referendum of DATE ” [ Statement of DATE of the then Minister of Finance . ] . They eventually introduced Law no . DATE which was passed by ORG on DATE and became law with effect from CARDINAL DATE . It was entitled “ Settlement of matters pertaining to the expropriated property of the deposed royal family of GPE ” , and provided as follows .

( i ) Law no . DATE was repealed and deed no . DATE rescinded . Any acts carried out pursuant thereto were void and of no legal effect ( section CARDINAL ) . The acts so declared void and of no legal effect included the donation to ORG at GPE and to ORG [ Note : On DATE ORG lodged an application with ORG under former LAW . The application was registered on DATE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . On DATE , by virtue of LAW No . CARDINAL , the application fell to be examined by ORG . ] .

( ii ) The NORP State became the owner of the movable and immovable property of the former King , Princess PERSON and Princess Ekaterini . Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was deemed to have remained in force ( section CARDINAL ) .

( iii ) Title to the Mon Repos property on the island of GPE was transferred to the municipality of GPE ( section PERSON ) ) .

( iv ) Taxes already assessed were written off . All legal proceedings pending before the administrative courts or ORG ( ORG της GPE ) in respect of inheritance and other taxes , surcharges and penalties were discontinued . Amounts paid by the former ORG and other members of the royal family in respect of tax could be claimed back from ORG , but the ORG could oppose any set - off of such a claim against any claim of the ORG against the royal family ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

( v ) Any agreements concerning any property of the royal family , except leasehold agreements , would be declared void . Any leases of land belonging to the royal family would continue as if entered into between the lessees and ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

( vi ) Any legal proceedings brought by the former ORG or other members of the royal family before any NORP court using the designation “ King ” or any other royal designation , even if combined with the prefix “ ex ” or “ former ” , would be regarded as void ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

( vii ) Preconditions were imposed for the continued recognition of the NORP nationality of the former King and the royal family , and for the retention of their NORP passports :

– a declaration was to be submitted to ORG ( ληξιαρχείo ) of GPE to the effect that the former King and the royal family unreservedly respected LAW and accepted and recognised GPE ;

– a further declaration was to be submitted to the Registrar to the effect that the former King and the royal family unreservedly waived any claim relating to the past holding of any office or possession of any official title ;

– the former King and the members of the royal family were to register in ORG ( μητρώα αρρέvωv ή δημoτoλόγια ) under a name and a surname ;

( viii ) any legislative provision contrary to this legislation was automatically repealed ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

The applicants brought several proceedings in the NORP courts concerning the titles to their estates .

The applicants also challenged the constitutionality of Law no . DATE . Following CARDINAL conflicting judgments of ORG ) and ORG , the case was referred to ORG ( GPE Ειδικό PERSON ) .

The court first examined whether the applicants were entitled to bring legal proceedings before it without using a surname . The court held that “ the indication ' former ORG is mentioned in the legal documents not as a title of nobility which is forbidden by the LAW , but in order to define the identity of this litigant , who for the reasons stated earlier , has no surname ... It concerns a reference to a historic fact which , like other elements , can indeed designate the identity of the above person , so that this person may enjoy judicial protection ” .

As regards the question of the royal property , the court stressed that “ it was from the beginning a political question ” , that the property rights of the applicants were linked to the form of government and that “ during the reign of the royal family , the property that belonged to the King and the royal family was treated like a special category of property ” . The court noted , inter alia , the following :

“ When LAW by LAW the form of the regime , by the same provision , which [ should be ] historically interpreted in the framework of the political and constitutional conjuncture ... in which it was voted , pursuant to the provisions of LAW and of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL that was issued on the basis of its LAW , it also solves the issue of the royal property . In other words , the referendum renders irrevocable the devolution of this property to the ORG , so that its return by law to the former King would be contrary to LAW . Therefore , section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ... , which implies that the former royal property would continue to belong to the deposed monarch and the members of the former royal family , and actually connects those persons with the property , contravenes the LAW . ”

Consequently , ORG , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , held that PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was constitutional . Under the LAW , the judgments of ORG are final and binding on all NORP courts ( LAW ) .

The relevant Articles of the DATE LAW provide as follows :

“ CARDINAL . All NORP are equal before the law .

NORP men and women have equal rights and equal obligations . ”

“ CARDINAL . Property is protected by the ORG ; rights deriving therefrom , however , may not be exercised contrary to public interest .

No one shall be deprived of his property except in the public interest , which must be duly shown , when and as specified by law and always following full compensation corresponding to the value of the expropriated property at the time of the court hearing on the provisional determination of compensation . In cases in which a request for the final determination of compensation is made , the value at the time of the court hearing of the request shall be considered .

Compensation shall in all cases be determined by civil courts . Such compensation may also be determined provisionally by the court after hearing or summoning the beneficiary , who may be obliged , at the discretion of the court , to furnish a commensurate guarantee for collecting the compensation as provided by law . ”

In GPE the number of property rights is limited ( numerus clausus ) . The real rights that a person may have are ownership , easements , pledge and mortgage ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Articles CARDINAL of the Civil Code deal with the institutions of ownership and co - ownership . Ownership may be acquired in a variety of ways , as by occupancy of things that belong to no one , by transfer from a previous owner or even by a non - owner , by operation of law , by the effect of judgments , and by acts of the public authorities . For the transfer of the ownership of immovables , the law requires an agreement between the owner and the transferee that the ownership is transferred for a lawful cause , the incorporation of this agreement in a notarial deed and its transcription at the transcription registry in the district in which the immovable is located ( Article CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage -  financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is the head of ORG .

On DATE he was arrested by ORG on charges of embezzlement .

On DATE a criminal investigator in charge of the case applied to ORG for an order to remand the applicant in custody for DATE . The reasons invoked by the investigator were the following :

“ PERSON committed a serious offence , he might abscond from the investigation authorities and from the court , he might influence the participants in the investigation and the discovery of the truth and the sanction provided by law for the offence is imprisonment for DATE ” .

On DATE , following a hearing where the applicant and his lawyers were present , ORG issued an order for his remand in custody for DATE . The court ’s reasoning was the following :

“ the suspect has reached the age at which he may be criminally prosecuted , he is suspected of having committed a serious offence , he might abscond from the investigation authorities and from the court and he might influence the witnesses and the discovery of the truth ” .

NORP The applicant ’s lawyers lodged an appeal against the order , arguing inter alia , that the decision to remand the applicant was groundless . They stated that the proceedings had been pending since DATE and that during that time the applicant had never obstructed in any way the investigation . He had travelled abroad on many occasions and returned every time and he had always behaved irreproachably as regards the investigation . He was a well - known and respectable man and he had a family and a house and many reputable people were prepared to act as surety if he were to be released in accordance with the provisions of LAW . ORG and the leader of a parliamentary opposition party also declared their intention to act as surety for him in order to secure his release . The lawyers also stated that the applicant was ready to give up his passport . They finally alleged that the applicant ’s detention was politically motivated and had been implemented to coincide with the approaching local elections .

They requested that the applicant be present in person at the hearing , but the request was dismissed , together with the applicant ’s appeal following a hearing on DATE by ORG . In dismissing the appeal , the court did not rely on any other arguments than those relied upon by the first instance court .

Meanwhile the applicant was detained in the remand centre of ORG in PERSON .

According to the applicant , the conditions of detention were inhuman and degrading . The cell was damp , the window was closed by metal plates and the electric light was always on . The cells were not provided with ventilation . As a result of the damp , the inmates’ clothes were wet and rotted on their bodies . Instead of a toilet , there was a bucket which was not separated from the rest of the cell . Instead of beds , there were wooden shelves with no mattresses , pillows , blankets or bed linen . The inmates were denied the opportunity of a DATE walk . There was no means of maintaining hygiene in the cell . There was no shower and the applicant was constantly running the risk of getting infected with tuberculosis , skin infections and other infectious diseases .

The applicant submits that the food was inedible . The DATE amount spent by the ORG for a detainee ’s food was CARDINAL Moldovan Lei ( MDL ) ( QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) . Because of the ORG ’s incapacity to provide adequate food , the prisoners were exceptionally allowed to receive food from their families . However , in the applicant ’s case the legal provisions were applied very strictly and he was not allowed to receive parcels from his family more than once a month .

The applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL of the remand centre of ORG . The surface of the cell was QUANTITY and usually CARDINAL persons were detained in the cell .

There was a window in the cell and daylight was available . The ventilation of the cells was effected by the common ventilation system . The cells were provided with water closets . In DATE the LOC of the remand centre were refurbished and the toilets were separated from the rest of the cell by a wall in order to ensure the privacy of the detainees . The cells were permanently provided with tap water , and accordingly the inmates enjoyed an adequate level of hygiene . The cells were frequently disinfected and the detainees had access to a shower once DATE .

During his detention the applicant had the possibility to play chess , draughts and dominos and to read books and magazines . He also had the possibility to pray and to use religious literature .

In their initial observations on the admissibility and merits of DATE , the Government did not deny the applicant ’s allegation that there was no exercise yard in the prison and that accordingly the detainees did not enjoy outdoor exercise . However , in their supplementary observations of DATE the ORG argued that the applicant enjoyed walks for TIME per day , at any time of the day convenient to him .

The detainees were provided with free food in accordance with the norms provided by the ORG and the quality of food was satisfactory . The prison was provided on a DATE basis with bread , vegetable oil , vegetables , tea and sugar . Because of insufficient funding , the detainees were not served meat and fish ; however they were given an increased quantity of cereals and lipids . Moreover , the detainees , including the applicant , had the right to receive food from their families .

The applicant had access to medical assistance .

On DATE ORG granted the investigator ’s request to prolong the applicant ’s detention on remand for DATE . The court ’s reasoning was exactly the same as that relied upon when the detention on remand was first ordered . The applicant appealed against that decision but the appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE at a hearing where the applicant was not allowed to be present , although his lawyers were present . No new arguments were given by ORG .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from the remand centre of ORG to the remand centre of ORG .

On DATE ORG again prolonged the applicant ’s detention on remand for DATE . No new reasons were given . The applicant appealed against this decision .

On DATE the independent DATE newspaper “ GPE ” published an interview with the police colonel “ PERSON ” who had worked as a ORG of ORG within ORG and who had been in charge of the applicant ’s case for a long time and had arrested the applicant on DATE . He stated inter alia that :

“ I declare with full responsibility that the PERSON file has been fabricated , on the orders of the heads of ORG , for political reasons . The real target of this fabrication is the Mayor PERSON and his team ...

Mr PERSON has provided the investigation organs with all the requested information , he appeared personally before the investigators every time he was asked to , and he never gave any reason to believe that he intended to abscond . As a matter of fact , he travelled abroad on many occasions after the investigation started and returned every time . No other suspects , even those who are clearly involved , have ever been arrested ...

The file does not contain and has never contained any evidence that would prove PERSON ’s guilt ... Many , if not all the witness statements from the file have been falsified or obtained through pressure and blackmail . Even the graphological examination did not prove that it was PERSON ’s signature on the documents , on the basis of which the criminal investigation commenced .... The heads of ORG have put great pressure on me to obtain favourable conclusions from the graphological experts ...

I can say that the Vice - Ministers U. and PERSON have put pressure on the President of ORG . Judge PERSON told me personally that he has been called by the Vice - Minister PERSON his former GPE friend . In my turn , I told him that the file was being supervised by the President of the country , and that a decision other than one of detention could cost any judge his or her job ...

In DATE I was invited to see the Vice - Minister PERSON , who asked me if I could find some evidence to compromise the Mayor .... In DATE he called on me again , this time to tell me that I had been included in the investigating group for the PERSON case . He also told me that my target should be GPE and the arrest of PERSON and of the Vice - Mayor PERSON ... And that I would be promoted if I succeeded ....

I have been asked explicitly to obtain a confession by any means , because ‘ there was no time to waste , since the elections were approaching’ . Then I understood the gravity of the situation ....

The decision that I could no longer work with them came to me when they started to pressurise me and to blame me when I could not obtain the necessary confession ....

Nobody can or will demonstrate that PERSON was a part of that deal ... The investigators know very well who was involved .... It was PERSON , CARDINAL of the owners of ORG “ M. ” , former member of ORG on behalf of ORG and a sponsor of this party in the last elections ...

They thought that I came too close to the truth and got rid of me . ”

On DATE ORG held a hearing and dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , relying on exactly the same reasons as before . The applicant ’s request to be present was denied ; however his lawyers were present . The court also denied the applicant ’s request to see all investigation documents and to have “ C.B. ” examined as a witness . It did not give any reasons for this refusal .

On DATE the investigators concluded their work on the case and the file was sent to the competent court .

On DATE the first hearing in the criminal proceedings took place before ORG .

The applicant was released from detention on CARDINAL DATE . The criminal proceedings against him are still pending .

The relevant parts of the ORG ’s report concerning the visit to GPE DATE read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In PERSON , the remand centre had CARDINAL cells ; with an official capacity of CARDINAL places , it was accommodating CARDINAL remand prisoners and CARDINAL administrative detainees at the time of the visit . As in GPE , the delegation met in that establishment minors who had been sharing cells with adults during prolonged periods .

The size of the cells varied approximately from CARDINAL m² to CARDINAL m² . At the time of the visit , the small cells held CARDINAL detainees , and the larger cells up to CARDINAL . Such a rate of occupancy may be considered as approaching tolerable norms . The cells were equipped with a wooden platform QUANTITY long , generally covering the whole width of the cell , and an NORP toilet . Like the other establishments visited , the detainees were given neither mattresses nor blankets . In addition , ventilation in the cells was mediocre , access to natural light virtually non - existent and artificial lighting , above the door , was permanently on ; this disturbed the detainees at TIME .

The delegation noted that the cell block had a shower area ; however , the detainees claimed they did not know that it existed . There were no facilities for outdoor exercise .

Depriving persons of their liberty brings with it the responsibility to detain them under conditions which are consistent with the inherent dignity of the human person . The facts found in the course of the ORG ’s visit show that the NORP authorities have failed to fulfil that responsibility with regard to persons detained in the district police stations and remand centres visited . Moreover , information available to the ORG suggests that the situation is not any different in other police establishments in GPE . In many ways , the conditions prevailing in the district police stations and the remand centre visited amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and , in addition , constituted a significant risk to the health of persons detained . ”

“ CARDINAL . Regarding the remand centres visited throughout GPE , the delegation made approximately similar findings , with minor exceptions , on the disastrous and unwholesome material conditions . In order to avoid a detailed description , please see for further information paragraphs CARDINAL of the report on the visit of DATE .

At the remand centre of GPE these conditions were aggravated by severe overcrowding . At the time of the visit , CARDINAL of detainees were kept in a facility with a maximum capacity of CARDINAL detainees , and thus QUANTITY persons had to live in a CARDINAL m² cell , while CARDINAL persons had to stay in cells of CARDINAL m² .

In the visited remand centre , the delegation collected numerous complaints on the quantity of food . It basically included : a cup of tea without sugar and a slice of bread in the morning , cereal porridge in TIME and a cup of warm water in TIME . In some places the food was distributed only once a day and included a soup and a slice of bread . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

LAW

“ If there are serious grounds for believing that an accused will abscond , obstruct the establishment of the truth during the criminal proceedings or re - offend ... , CARDINAL of the following preventive measures may be imposed : a written undertaking not to leave the district , bail , a guarantee by a public organisation or detention on remand .

When deciding on the necessity to impose a preventive measure , as well as on the choice of the preventive measure , ... the court shall pay attention , besides the circumstances indicated in the first paragraph of this article , to such circumstances as the seriousness of the imputed offence , the personality of the accused , his or her occupation , age , state of health , family status and other circumstances .

Article CARDINAL . Personal Guarantee

The personal guarantee consists of a written commitment made by trustworthy persons in order to guarantee the appropriate behaviour of the accused and his appearance before the investigating organ , prosecutor or court , when need be . The number of guarantors can not be CARDINAL .

At the moment of making the written commitment , the guarantor shall be acquainted with the merits of the case in relation to which the detention was ordered and shall be warned about his liability in case the accused should breach the rules . In this case , the court may fine each guarantor CARDINAL times the minimum wage , in accordance with the provisions of Article CARDINAL of the present Code .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL

Detention on remand may be imposed ... in cases concerning offences in respect of which the law provides for custodial sentences for a period exceeding one year . In exceptional cases , where the court has gathered evidence that an accused committed the acts mentioned in LAW , detention on remand may be imposed ... in cases concerning offences in respect of which the law provides for custodial sentences for a period of DATE . ”


No violation of Art. 2 concerning the death of the applicant's husband;No violation of Art. 2 concerning the effectiveness of the investigation;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 13

On DATE the applicant 's husband , PERSON , a building contractor , was killed outside his house as he was getting into his van . He was a member of the pro - NORP political party , ORG ( ORG ) and a delegate of the local ORG branch . According to the witnesses , he was gunned down by CARDINAL men in civilian clothes in front of a number of people , including his brother , PERSON , who was waiting for him in the vehicle .

There are discrepancies between the parties ' accounts of what took place , as regards both the timing of the incident and events immediately after the shooting .

According to the applicant , the shooting took place TIME brother - in - law , PERSON , attempted to chase his brother 's killers but had been prevented from doing so by plainclothes police officers , who had proceeded to arrest him and taken him into police custody . In her observations of DATE the applicant added that her brother - in - law had set off in pursuit of the killers with another person whom she named in a statement of CARDINAL DATE as PERSON .

In corroboration of her account , the applicant inter alia sent the ORG a statement made by her brother - in - law on DATE before a member of ORG and a member of the HADEP . According to that statement , the shots had been fired at TIME . He had set off in pursuit of the killers with a friend , but they had been intercepted by police officers . After questioning them about the ORG , ORG ( ORG , and the ORG , the police officers had taken them firstly to ORG , where PERSON had caught sight of his brother on a bench , and then to the police station , where they were questioned . The police had released them TIME . PERSON had then returned to the hospital , where he learnt that his brother had died in the meantime .

The applicant added that CARDINAL people had been taken into police custody while her husband 's funeral was taking place . Moreover , on CARDINAL occasions before her husband 's death the police had burst into their house at TIME and carried out searches . On the first CARDINAL occasions they had enquired as to her husband 's whereabouts and on the third had taken him away . However , he had been released DATE . She also said that their house had been kept under constant police surveillance .

NORP The applicant affirmed that she was not asked to attend for interview by the investigators until DATE .

The Government maintained that the shots had been fired just before CARDINAL a.m. The investigation revealed that PERSON had immediately taken his brother to ORG .

The Government also maintained that the applicant had been sent a letter requiring her to attend the local police station after the murder , but had failed to do so .

The record of the victim 's examination on his admission to hospital , which was signed by CARDINAL doctors , put the time of his arrival at TIME A police report recorded as having been made up at TIME on DATE and which was signed by QUANTITY police officers , ORG , and a doctor , stated that the applicant 's husband had arrived at the casualty and emergency department of ORG at TIME and had been taken to an operating theatre . A second police report signed by the same CARDINAL officers and PERSON had been made up at TIME on DATE to record the remittance of various objects and money in the wounded man 's possession to his brother , PERSON .

After the incident the police made inquiries at the scene , drew up a sketch map of the locality and took the names of everyone who was present when the shooting occurred . The incident report states that CARDINAL cartridges were found .

On DATE CARDINAL people , including PERSON , made statements to the police . PERSON said that the incident had occurred at TIME and that he had taken his brother to hospital on discovering that he had been hit . He made no mention of having chased the assailants or of being stopped by police officers . PERSON , an employee of the victim who was in the back of the vehicle when the shooting took place , made no mention of any such events in his account either . He was questioned by police officers at TIME and put the time of the shooting at TIME , immediately after he and one Mesut Şen had pulled up outside the victim 's house in the van . These CARDINAL witnesses were only able to give a brief description of the CARDINAL gunmen . PERSON , the owner of a tearoom , gave information on the age , height and hair colour of CARDINAL of the gunmen , but was unable to describe the second . He did , however , say that there were approximately CARDINAL people in his tearoom in addition to the workmen who had just left to get into the van . He made no reference in his statement to the suspects being chased after the shooting . Questioned by the same officers , PERSON , a baker working nearby , was unable to provide any helpful information .

ORG began a preliminary investigation into the murder of the applicant 's husband . On DATE the Head of the ORG sent a report to ORG , to which were attached the records of the CARDINAL interviews conducted on DATE , a sketch map of the scene of the crime and CARDINAL other police reports giving details of the searches made at the scene and of the vehicle and confirming that the police had received the bullet that had been removed from the victim 's body . CARDINAL medical reports were also attached , namely the death certificates concluding that an autopsy was required , and the toxicological analysis report . Among other matters referred to in the Head of the Anti - Terrorist Branch 's report and enclosed with it were the results of the ballistics report .

On DATE , in the course of that investigation , ORG issued an arrest warrant against a person or persons unknown for murder and requested the relevant police department to investigate the crime and arrest the suspects . It was instructed to report to ORG DATE on progress .

NORP In DATE the ORG launched an operation against the illegal organisation ORG after several members of the ORG and a number of ORG supporters were killed . In an interview on DATE , GPE , CARDINAL of CARDINAL people arrested in that operation , said that another member of the organisation , PERSON , had asked him to obtain information on members of the ORG and the NORP living in the vicinity , including PERSON . After completing his mission , he learnt that the people concerned had been killed in DATE . He added that he had no idea who the killers were or who had ordered the murders to be carried out . PERSON , who was also among those arrested , was questioned the same day but denied the accusations . That information was passed on to ORG , with a summary of the interviews of the persons questioned .

Meanwhile , forensic tests were carried out on firearms and ammunition that had been seized at the homes of some of the people who had been arrested on DATE . It showed that the cartridge cases from the seized ammunition were not the same as cartridge cases that had been found at the scene of certain unsolved cases .

On DATE ORG questioned the CARDINAL suspects . He made an application on DATE for CARDINAL of them to be remanded in custody .

After hearing these suspects ORG of ORG remanded CARDINAL of them , including PERSON and GPE , in custody and ordered the release of the sixth .

Also on CARDINAL DATE the ORG relinquished jurisdiction over the case , as he considered that some of the criminal activities of which the persons arrested were accused , namely the counts of being members of and activists in an illegal organisation , fell within the jurisdiction of ORG at ORG .

On DATE ORG at ORG dropped charges against CARDINAL of the CARDINAL defendants , as he considered that there was no concrete evidence to show that they had played an active role in the illegal organisation . He committed the CARDINAL remaining defendants to stand trial before ORG .

On DATE ORG at ORG requested ORG to arrange a confrontation between the CARDINAL witnesses who had been questioned on DATE and CARDINAL of the persons who had been arrested in DATE , including GPE and PERSON On DATE ORG instructed ORG to produce the CARDINAL witnesses concerned and the Governor of ORG to produce the CARDINAL prisoners for a confrontation . PERSON was brought before him on DATE . According to a note dated CARDINAL DATE , it was not possible to produce PERSON , as he was performing his military service at GPE in another region . PERSON and PERSON could not be produced either , as they had moved and the police could not find anyone who knew their new address . In letters of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG informed ORG at ORG that it had not been possible to hold the requested confrontation , since there was no record of one of the accused in the prison register and the others had been transferred to FAC .

On DATE ORG at ORG requested the ORG to produce the CARDINAL witnesses concerned . On DATE the ORG repeated that PERSON was performing his military service at GPE and said that the other witnesses had insufficient means to pay their travel expenses and would attend as soon as they were able .

On DATE , referring in particular to the report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG at ORG requested the ORG to conduct a thorough search for those responsible for the murders of PERSON and another person . He asked for DATE progress reports on the investigation .

On DATE ORG at ORG invited ORG to arrange for a confrontation between the witnesses to PERSON murder and the defendants who had been committed on DATE for trial by ORG .

On DATE the ORG informed ORG at ORG that , despite its efforts , it had not yet managed to identify those responsible for the CARDINAL murders referred to in the latter 's letter of CARDINAL DATE . It assured him that as soon as it obtained any further information it would pass it on to him .

On DATE ORG at ORG again invited ORG to arrange for a confrontation between the persons who had witnessed the murder and the defendants who had been committed on DATE for trial by ORG .

On DATE ORG acquitted the CARDINAL defendants who on CARDINAL DATE had been committed to stand trial before it for lack of evidence . On DATE ORG appealed to ORG , which , in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE , having received no reply to his letters of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , ORG at ORG repeated his request of DATE for a confrontation to be arranged . He gave instructions for photographs to be taken of the persons concerned for use for identification purposes should the need subsequently arise . On CARDINAL and DATE he received a reply informing him among other things that it had not been possible to arrange for the presence of the persons indicted on CARDINAL DATE as , according to the information contained in the indictment , they were in custody .

On DATE ORG at ORG renewed his requests to ORG for a confrontation to be arranged , explaining that the persons who were to be confronted by the witnesses had been released as a result of their acquittal .

On DATE ORG at ORG invited ORG to recover the clothing the victim was wearing when he was killed for use in forensic tests . He explained that it might have been handed over to his brother , ORG . He also requested a further hearing of the CARDINAL witnesses who had given evidence on DATE and a further inspection of the scene of the crime .

ORG was abolished by PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and replaced by ORG , to which the case was transferred .

On DATE ORG at ORG instructed ORG to pursue its investigations into the CARDINAL crimes of murder and assault , including the murder of PERSON , that had been committed in DATE . He invited it to explore the possibility that the crimes were the work of the illegal ORG or ORG organisations further . He pointed out that PERSON and GPE remained under suspicion in that regard , and requested that CARDINAL witnesses , including PERSON and PERSON , be shown the photographs of the suspects that had been taken at the request of ORG at ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG at ORG took a deposition from PERSON ; it did not add to the information contained in his deposition of CARDINAL DATE . PERSON was shown the photographs of suspects , but said that he did not recognise any of them and had not seen the killers ' faces .

Also on DATE ORG informed ORG that it was unable to bring the other witnesses before him , as they were not staying at their addresses .

On DATE ORG at ORG again invited the Anti - Terrorist Branch Headquarters to pursue its investigations into the CARDINAL crimes of murder and assault and reminded them that PERSON and GPE were suspects . He also requested DATE progress reports .

Referring to the letters of DATE and DATE ORG informed ORG on DATE that it had not been able to establish where PERSON and Z.T lived . It had found the addresses of GPE 's brothers and PERSON 's brother , but the latter did not know where PERSON lived . On DATE the Anti - Terrorist Branch Headquarters informed ORG that it had been unable to obtain data or information about the murder on DATE .

By letters of DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , ORG at ORG again invited the Anti - Terrorist Branch Headquarters to pursue its investigations into the death and to provide him with DATE progress reports . ORG acknowledged receipt of the letters and promised to take the necessary action . By letters of DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE it informed him that no new information had been obtained from its further inquiries .

Meanwhile , on DATE ORG at ORG invited the Anti - Terrorist Branch Headquarters to arrange for the applicant and ORG and PERSON to attend his office for questioning . The request concerning PERSON was forwarded DATE to ORG in GPE , where he lived .

On DATE ORG at ORG invited the Anti - Terrorist Branch Headquarters to arrange for the police officer who had been the first to the scene to be brought before him for questioning . The Anti - Terrorist Branch informed him DATE that it had been unable to contact the police officer as he was performing his military service and it was not known to which barracks he had been assigned .

On DATE ORG at ORG took a deposition from the applicant , in which the latter stated :

“ On DATE my husband left the house at TIME to go out in our van . He set off in the direction of the tearooms to fetch the workmen who were waiting for him there . He was getting into the van when CARDINAL people came up alongside him . They shot him from behind from a distance of QUANTITY . As I was a little way off , I can not say who fired the shots : it is possible that both the assailants did . I ran towards the scene of the murder to try to grab hold of the killers , but they fled . CARDINAL of the persons who fired the shots was short and stout , the other was thin and QUANTITY CARDINAL tall . I saw them from behind . ”

The complainant is asked to examine photographs of the suspects , but says that she can not recognise the killers as she did not see their faces .

“ The accused fired the shots with a pistol . I do not know how many shots were fired . I would say CARDINAL or CARDINAL . I did not see the pistols . I do not know who killed my husband , nor do I know whether he was executed by an organisation . I wish to file a complaint if the killers are found . I would add that my husband was killed as he opened the van door and started to get in . ”

PERSON was heard on DATE and gave similar information to that contained in his deposition of DATE . He added that after the shots had been fired , the injured man was taken to ORG , where he died . PERSON was heard DATE but did not add to the information he had given in his previous depositions , ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The victim 's brother , PERSON , was heard by ORG on DATE . He had little information to give about his brother 's death . He had been informed of events at work and had gone to the hospital where he learnt that his brother had died . He added that his brother 's clothes had not been handed over to him and he did not know what had been done with them . PERSON was heard by ORG on DATE . The record of his deposition reads as follows :

“ ' Towards LOC on TIME CARDINAL DATE , I went to the tearoom . My elder brother 's van arrived at TIME I got into the driver 's cabin , and my elder brother , PERSON , did likewise . He had already put a foot inside when I heard CARDINAL pistol shots and my brother collapsed in the driver 's cabin of the van . There were CARDINAL of us in the cabin and my brother fell on top of us . I started to run after the CARDINAL men who had fired the shots . I did not see their faces , but there had been other people in the tearoom while I was there , apart from the workmen . It was they who shot my brother . Both of them had a pistol in their hands but I am unable to identify the make . CARDINAL of the killers was QUANTITY tall , the other QUANTITY . He was stout . The man who was QUANTITY tall was slim , had a black moustache and hollow cheeks . The other man was QUANTITY tall , stout , blond and had bright coloured eyes . I ran after them but was unable to catch them . They turned into another street and got away . They did not fire at me or anyone else . '

The witness was shown the photographs in the case file [ including the photographs of the CARDINAL people who were arrested in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ] . He said : ' The men who shot my brother are not any of the men in the photographs . I do not know what clothes my brother was wearing DATE he was killed or where they are , but they are not in our house . I saw my brother 's killers from behind , not from the front . However , they were in the tea - room : CARDINAL was tall and dark , the other small and blond . I did not see the killers after the murder . '

The witness 's statements of DATE were read over to him . He replied :

' The statements are correct and the signature is mine . In our suburb the owner of a bookshop was killed . He was GPE 's elder brother . DATE after that murder , my brother was killed . After the bookshop owner was killed , a group of men gathered outside our office in the CARDINAL May suburb , shouting ' They are the killers ' . I do not know these people . It is possible that my brother PERSON was believed to be responsible for the death of the bookshop owner and was executed by ORG supporters . I have nothing else to say . ' ”

By a letter sent on DATE ORG at ORG informed ORG of the position in the investigation and forwarded information from the case file . It advised that following the murder of PERSON , the police had began inquiries DATE and had summoned PERSON , the applicant ( PERSON ) , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON to give statements as witnesses .

PERSON was questioned further by ORG on DATE and stated inter alia :

“ When we recovered the body of my brother , PERSON , he was not wearing any clothes . The clothes were not returned to us .

At the time of the murder , I was inside the van on the corner of LOC in the CARDINAL May district . My brother was shot as he was getting into the van . He collapsed , but later managed to sit up . We took him to ORG . He was not operated on by ORG . We were told later that he had died as he was being taken for an operation .

I saw the killers . They were not people I knew . I would recognise them if I saw them again . ”

On DATE ORG at ORG issued further instructions to ORG concerning the CARDINAL murders and/or assaults committed in DATE , including :

“ ( a ) In the light of your replies regarding these case files , we note that no analyses have been carried out , the acts remain unexplained and no inquiries have been made to resolve them . These acts may have been the work of either the ORG organisation or ORG . In any event , in view of the importance of the events , inquiries must be made and a detailed reply given ...

( e ) NORP The murders and attempted murders have profoundly affected public opinion , creating a sense of insecurity . It is for that reason that you are asked to investigate these cases carefully and to inform us of the results of your inquiries . ”

On DATE the Anti - Terrorist Branch Headquarters brought the following information about the present case to ORG attention :

“ It is considered that the murder of PERSON on DATE was perpetrated by ORG . During questioning , GPE , a member of ORG , stated that PERSON , a member of the same organisation , had given an order for information to be obtained on members of the ORG with a view to ridding the district of those people . GPE has admitted that he compiled a list containing the names of those people and gave it to ORG Mr PERSON name was included on the list . ORG has also said that he heard about the murder later . PERSON denied GPE 's allegations . No organisation has claimed responsibility for this murder . ”

PERSON appeared before the public prosecutor again on CARDINAL DATE and provided similar information to that contained in his deposition of DATE . He added that he had remained at the scene of the murder while the driver of the van , PERSON , took the victim , his brother - in - law , to hospital .

Referring to the letter of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Anti - Terrorist Branch informed ORG at ORG in a letter of DATE that it was pursuing its inquiries and would inform him of developments .

On DATE the Anti - Terrorist Branch Headquarters questioned PERSON , who gave the following account :

“ At TIME on the day of the murder , I was waiting outside the tearoom on FAC with CARDINAL workers for my brother to arrive . He came to within QUANTITY of us and gestured for us to get into the van , a ORG . I sat in the front . When my brother was next to us , some people who I did not know but had noticed drinking tea while waiting for my brother , one of whom was very corpulent , the other tall and slim , shot him . My brother collapsed on top of us . I got out on the driver 's side and ran after the assailants . When they saw that I was giving chase , they fired CARDINAL shots . That scared me and I turned back at that point . Nobody prevented me from chasing them . Later I took a collective taxi to the hospital to which my brother had been admitted .

The CARDINAL workmen who were in front of the tearoom on DATE were our workmen . I do not remember their names and addresses .

In the deposition I made at the police station on DATE I did not mention the fact that I had chased the assailants , but in my later depositions to the judicial authorities and ORG at ORG , I did explain that I had chased the suspects and that no one had stopped me doing so .

DATE after I made my depositions to the judicial authorities and ORG , a man with a beard approached me saying he was a member of ORG . He got me to sign a blank sheet of paper and told me that he would fill it in and approach the authorities . When I asked him which authorities he had in mind , he told me not to worry and left .

I have made this deposition without being subjected to pressure of any sort and have expressed my opinion of my own will .

On DATE PERSON was heard by ORG . The following is an extract from his statement :

“ I knew PERSON , who was killed on the aforementioned date , as I worked for him as a driver and he was married to my CARDINAL sister , PERSON . On DATE of the murder I arrived outside the tearoom on FAC in the CARDINAL May of LOC in GPE , to collect the workmen . CARDINAL or QUANTITY workmen got into the back of the van . Seated next to me in the van were PERSON and PERSON . I do not know his surname or address . When our employer , PERSON , got in beside me I heard pistol shots . I heard CARDINAL or QUANTITY shots . I did not see the suspects ' faces . I leant over inside the vehicle to protect myself . PERSON got out of the van by climbing over me but I do not know whether he chased the suspects . I then saw the suspects from behind making their getaway along the DCARDINAL road . I did not give chase as I was afraid . Since I did not see their faces , I can not identify them . Once I had got over the shock , I took PERSON to ORG . I was questioned by police officers in the hospital . This is what I know about these events . ”

PERSON said virtually the same thing when he was questioned the same day by ORG at ORG . He explained that he was alone in the van when he stopped outside the tea room . PERSON and PERSON got in beside him and the other workmen got in the back .

NORP Under further questioning on DATE by ORG , PERSON gave the following details about the persons present in the tearoom just before his brother was killed :

“ Those present were our workmen , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and some others whose names I do not recall . The CARDINAL people who killed my brother were sitting beside us . As I had no reason to be suspicious of them , I did not pay them any attention . My brother 's van , whose vehicle registration number I do not recall , arrived to pick up the workmen . I was sat in the part reserved for the driver and passengers . My brother , PERSON , put a foot inside the vehicle to sit down next to me and at that point I heard CARDINAL pistol shots . My brother collapsed towards me . I got out of my seat of and began to run after the suspects . I did not see their faces . These were not the people whose photographs were shown to me earlier . The only persons at the scene were our workmen and the CARDINAL suspects . ”

The applicants was further questioned by ORG on DATE . The CARDINAL records made of the interview read as follows :

“ ' At TIME on DATE , my husband , PERSON , left our house . His van was going to pick up the workmen outside PERSON coffee house to take them to the building site . When he left the house , I wondered whether he would manage to catch the van and that is why I waited outside the house . I was QUANTITY from the van and there was nothing obstructing my view of it . I knew that the van driver was PERSON , but did not know the workmen . As my husband , PERSON , got into the van alongside the driver , CARDINAL people came up and fired shots , but I was unable to work out whether my husband was the target . At that point a person I did not know arrived and told me that my husband had been shot . CARDINAL of the assailants was stout and short . The other was slim and QUANTITY CARDINAL tall . I did not see their faces . From what I heard , they fired CARDINAL or CARDINAL shots . I saw CARDINAL of them fire a shot in the air . I do not know who killed my husband . I was not questioned after the killing . The first deposition I gave was to you on DATE . PERSON was the van driver and that is how I know that he was at the scene of the murder . I do not know the identity of the other workmen . I do not remember whether I took any official action after the murder . The assailants ran towards me . At that point I did not know that they had shot my husband . They disappeared round the corner of the road just next to me . They were holding pistols . My brother - in - law , PERSON , arrived and told me that my husband had been shot . I did not see PERSON run after the suspects . When he got up to me he fainted . I wanted to help him recover his senses and at the same time to follow the suspects , but I did not find them . I met an elderly person . I do not know his name , but do know his address . That person may know in which direction the suspects fled . When I asked him which way they had gone , he said that he had not seen them . To be precise , he said that they had run off and that there was no point in giving chase , as I would never be able to catch them up . No one stopped me when I tried to chase them . In any event , I was the only person who sought to follow the suspects . CARDINAL or DATE before my husband was killed , there was an investigation . My husband was taken into police custody but was not detained . He was questioned about a person named PERSON and another workman , who were working on one of the building sites in the sub - prefecture of GPE . Rıfat and the other workman were suspected of being members of the ORG and I think my husband was suspected of helping them . I repeat that my husband was not detained but merely taken into police custody . I do not suggest that any plainclothes police officers were at the scene of the murder . No one sought to stop anyone from chasing the suspects . In any event , I was the only person who attempted to follow them . That is all I have to say . '

The depositions was read out and the witness approved it . Not knowing how to sign her name , she affixed a thumbprint .

' I did not tell the people who drew up the memorial [ the memorial in reply that was lodged with the Commission ] that my brother - in - law , PERSON , was prevented from chasing after the suspects by plainclothes police officers . I do not know where they obtained that information . I did not say that in my deposition of DATE , as it is not true and I was not asked about that subject . We buried the deceased DATE he was killed . At TIME DATE , I noticed someone in the fields , QUANTITY from my home , and another person walk past my house . I think that they were police officers , but they were not wearing uniforms . The person who walked past my house saw me crying and made off in the direction of the fields . He undoubtedly caught up with the person who was already there . I have nothing else to say . ' ”

On TIME CARDINAL DATE , ORG took the following statement from PERSON :

“ At TIME DATE , police officers , accompanied by a person who I did not know beforehand but whom I subsequently learnt was PERSON , came to my house . Pointing at me , PERSON said ' I am not sure , but he may be the person ' . The police officers gave me an appointment to attend the office of ORG at ORG . In DATE several people were killed in our district . I did not know the person who was killed , PERSON , or his wife , PERSON . I had never seen PERSON before DATE . I am a brick manufacturer . I do not recall the murder of PERSON . PERSON never spoke to me about the subject at that time . I do not know anything and have not seen anything . I do not know the suspects and have no information about the murder of PERSON . ”

When questioned on DATE , PERSON said that after hearing the first shots , he had been seized by panic and had not watched what happened . He had not seen the assailants or the persons who had chased after them and could not say whether there had been a chase . It was DATE that he had noticed that PERSON had been wounded . PERSON and his brother were the only persons he knew among those who had been present . He could not remember whether his brother , PERSON , who was also working on the building site to which they were all going , was present that morning . PERSON was later questioned , but stated that he was not at the scene of the murder as he had taken the day off work .

The rules and procedures applicable to liability for illegal acts may be resumed as follows .

The Criminal Code contains provisions dealing with unintentional homicide ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , intentional homicide ( Article CARDINAL ) and murder ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The authorities ' obligations with regard to conducting a preliminary investigation into acts or omissions capable of constituting such offences that have been brought to their attention are governed by ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) . Offences may be reported to the authorities or members of the security forces or to the public prosecutors ' offices . Complaints may be made in writing or orally . If the complaint is made orally , the authority must make a record of it ( LAW ) .

If there is evidence to suggest that a death is not due to natural causes , members of the security forces who have been informed of that fact are required to advise the public prosecutor or a criminal - court judge ( LAW ) .

A public prosecutor who is informed by any means whatsoever of a situation that gives rise to suspicion that an offence has been committed has a duty to investigate the facts in order to decide whether or not a prosecution should be brought ( LAW ) .

Under LAW of PERSON no . CARDINAL on Administrative Procedure , anyone who sustains damage as a result of an act by the authorities may , within DATE after the alleged act was committed , claim compensation from them . If the claim is rejected in whole or in part or if no reply is received within DATE , the victim may bring administrative proceedings .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ All acts or decisions of the authorities are subject to judicial review ...

The authorities shall be liable to make reparation for all damage caused by their acts or measures . ”

That provision establishes the ORG 's strict liability , which comes into play if it is shown that in the circumstances of a particular case the ORG has failed in its obligation to maintain public order , ensure public safety or protect people 's lives or property , without it being necessary to show a tortious act attributable to the authorities . Under these rules , the authorities may therefore be held liable to compensate anyone who has sustained loss as a result of acts committed by unidentified persons .

Under LAW , anyone who suffers damage as a result of an illegal or tortious act may bring an action for damages for pecuniary loss ( Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) and non - pecuniary loss ( Article CARDINAL ) . The civil courts are not bound by either the findings or the verdict of the criminal courts on the issue of the defendant 's guilt ( Article CARDINAL ) .

DATE . However , under LAW no . CARDINAL on ORG , anyone who has sustained loss as a result of an act done in the performance of duties governed by public law may , in principle , only bring an action against the authority by whom the civil servant concerned is employed and not directly against the civil servant ( see Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) . That is not , however , an absolute rule . When an act is found to be illegal or tortious and , consequently , is no longer an “ administrative ” act or deed , the civil courts may allow a claim for damages to be made against the official concerned , without prejudice to the victim 's right to bring an action against the authority on the basis of its joint liability as the employer ( LAW ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , a town in LOC .

As a victim of GPE , the applicant is entitled to benefits . Considering herself underpaid , she brought CARDINAL sets of proceedings against the local welfare authority .

On DATE the ORG awarded the applicant arrears and legal costs in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) . This judgment became binding on DATE and was partly enforced on DATE .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant more arrears in the amount of RUB PERSON . This judgment became binding on DATE and was enforced on DATE .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant arrears in the amount of RUB CARDINAL , and on DATE the appeal court in addition fixed a new amount of periodic payments . This judgment became binding on DATE and was enforced on DATE .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant arrears in the amount of RUB CARDINAL . This judgment became binding on DATE and was enforced on an unspecified date .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant arrears in the amount of RUB CARDINAL . This judgment became binding on DATE and was enforced on DATE .

On DATE ORG also awarded the applicant further arrears in the amount of RUB CARDINAL and fixed a new amount of periodic payments . This judgment became binding on DATE and was enforced on an unspecified date .

On the applicant ’s request , on DATE and DATE ORG compensated the applicant ’s inflationary loss caused by the delayed enforcement of the judgments in the total amount of RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

Under section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , a bailiff must enforce a judgment within DATE . Under section QUANTITY of LAW of DATE , ORG must enforce a judgment within DATE .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Stanislav Pavlovschi

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before ORG , solicitors in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . On DATE , the applicant made a claim for widows’ benefits . On DATE , the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman . On DATE the applicant made a request for reconsideration . On DATE his claim was reconsidered but the decision remained unchanged . The applicant appealed and a ORG hearing was held on DATE . His claim was dismissed on DATE .

The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .