PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 4694/03) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Turkish nationals, Mr Mustafa Akın and Mr Armağan Akın (“the applicants”), on 6 January 2003.

The applicants were represented by Ms Leyla Hülya Tuna, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicants alleged, in particular, that a domestic court decision, which prevented the second applicant from seeing his younger sister, had infringed their right to respect for their family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.

On 22 January 2008 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicants were born in 1957 and 1988 respectively and live in Ödemiş.

On 30 September 1999 the first applicant's wife instituted divorce proceedings and asked for the custody of their two children; Armağan (the second applicant) and his younger sister Damla who was born in 1993.

The Ödemiş Civil Court of First Instance (“the Ödemiş Court”) granted the couple's divorce on 23 June 2000. Having regard to the “parties' incomes and the ages of the two children”, the Ödemiş Court awarded custody of Armağan to the first applicant and that of Damla to her mother. It also decided that the parents would exchange the children between 1 and 15 February every year, during the month of July and for a total period of four days during the two religious holidays.

On 30 November 2000 the first applicant requested the Ödemiş Court to grant an interim measure to the effect that he would have both children one weekend and his ex-wife would have them the next. This way, he argued, the children would not lose contact with each other and he would have the opportunity to spend every other weekend with both his children. This request was rejected on 19 December 2000 by the Ödemiş Court which considered that its decision concerning the custody issue had been correct.

The appeal lodged by the applicant against the Ödemiş Court's decision of 23 June 2000 was rejected by the Court of Cassation on 8 December 2000. A request made by the first applicant for a rectification of that decision was rejected on 8 February 2001.

On 11 September 2001 the first applicant brought a court case on behalf of his son and on his own behalf against his ex-wife. He claimed that although he and his son were living in the same town and very close to his ex-wife and his daughter, the decision of the Ödemiş Court had prevented the two children from seeing each other and him from spending time with both his children. This, he claimed, was causing irreversible psychological problems for the children. Even when the children saw each other in the street they were prevented from talking to each other by their mother. He requested that the children be able to see each other every weekend. He also asked the court to order his ex-wife to pay maintenance to him in respect of Armağan.

The Ödemiş Court refused the applicants' requests on 1 February 2002. It held that, although diligence had to be shown to satisfy the needs of the parents and their children and to improve the ties between them, ordering Damla to spend every weekend with her father would mean a continual change of environment for her and would confront her with variations in discipline.

The applicants appealed and referred in their appeal to a number of decisions of the Court of Cassation. According to those decisions, the applicable law and procedure required domestic courts to ensure that access arrangements do not prevent the children of divorced parents from seeing each other. The applicants maintained that ensuring this was a matter for a court of law to consider of its own motion. They also argued that the children's best interests should be given paramount importance. They drew the Court of Cassation's attention to the fact that the two siblings had not seen each other for two years.

The appeal was rejected by the Court of Cassation on 29 April 2002 which considered that the Ödemiş Court had “adequately examined the evidence available to it and that its conclusion had been in accordance with the applicable legislation”. A subsequent rectification request lodged by the applicants was rejected on 15 July 2002. In their request for rectification the applicants submitted that the two children had not seen each other for almost three years and that their request for rectification was their last chance of seeing each other.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e1
001-97957_a10_em1
CODE
DIRECT
4694/03
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-97957_a10_e2
001-97957_a10_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Turkey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e3
001-97957_a10_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Turkish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e4
001-97957_a10_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Mustafa Akın
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e5
001-97957_a10_em5
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Armağan Akın
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e6
001-97957_a10_em6
DATETIME
QUASI
6 January 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e7
001-97957_a10_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Leyla Hülya Tuna
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-97957_a10_e8
001-97957_a10_em8
LOC
QUASI
İzmir
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e2
001-97957_a10_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
001-97957_a10_em2
Turkish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e9
001-97957_a10_em10
DATETIME
QUASI
22 January 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e10
001-97957_a10_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
1957
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e11
001-97957_a10_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e12
001-97957_a10_em13
LOC
QUASI
Ödemiş
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e13
001-97957_a10_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
30 September 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-97957_a10_e14
001-97957_a10_em15
DEM
NO_MASK
two children
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e5
001-97957_a10_em16
PERSON
QUASI
001-97957_a10_em5
Armağan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e15
001-97957_a10_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Damla
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e16
001-97957_a10_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-97957_a10_e17
001-97957_a10_em19
ORG
QUASI
Ödemiş Civil Court of First Instance (“the Ödemiş Court”)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e18
001-97957_a10_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
23 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e14
001-97957_a10_em21
DEM
NO_MASK
two children
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-97957_a10_e19
001-97957_a10_em22
ORG
QUASI
Ödemiş Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-97957_a10_e5
001-97957_a10_em23
PERSON
QUASI
Armağan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-97957_a10_e15
001-97957_a10_em24
PERSON
QUASI
Damla
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-97957_a10_e20
001-97957_a10_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
1 and 15 February
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e21
001-97957_a10_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
month of July
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e22
001-97957_a10_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
four days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e23
001-97957_a10_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
30 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e19
001-97957_a10_em29
ORG
QUASI
Ödemiş Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e24
001-97957_a10_em30
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one weekend
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e25
001-97957_a10_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
19 December 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e19
001-97957_a10_em32
ORG
QUASI
Ödemiş Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e26
001-97957_a10_em33
ORG
QUASI
Ödemiş Court's
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e18
001-97957_a10_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
23 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e27
001-97957_a10_em35
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e28
001-97957_a10_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
8 December 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e29
001-97957_a10_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
8 February 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e30
001-97957_a10_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
11 September 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e19
001-97957_a10_em39
ORG
QUASI
Ödemiş Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e14
001-97957_a10_em40
DEM
NO_MASK
two children
HEALTH
insert
001-97957_a10_e31
001-97957_a10_em41
DEM
NO_MASK
psychological problems
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e5
001-97957_a10_em42
PERSON
QUASI
Armağan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e19
001-97957_a10_em43
ORG
QUASI
Ödemiş Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e32
001-97957_a10_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
1 February 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e15
001-97957_a10_em45
PERSON
QUASI
Damla
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e33
001-97957_a10_em46
DATETIME
NO_MASK
every weekend
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e27
001-97957_a10_em47
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e34
001-97957_a10_em48
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation's
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e35
001-97957_a10_em49
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e27
001-97957_a10_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e36
001-97957_a10_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
29 April 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e19
001-97957_a10_em52
ORG
QUASI
Ödemiş Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e37
001-97957_a10_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
15 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e14
001-97957_a10_em54
DEM
NO_MASK
two children
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-97957_a10_e38
001-97957_a10_em55
DATETIME
QUASI
almost three years
Mustafa Akın
TUR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Mustafa Akın