Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 23530/94

Ramazan Beyaz

against

Turkey

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 15 September 1997)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. THE PARTIES

(paras. 1-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

(paras. 4-13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

(paras. 14-28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 29-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . . . .6

I. THE PARTIES

1. This Report, which is drawn up in accordance with Article 30

para. 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms, concerns the application brought by

Ramazan Beyaz against Turkey.

2. The applicant was born in 1964 and at the time of the

introduction of the application resided in Lice, Diyarbakir province.

In the proceedings before the Commission the applicant was represented

by Professor Kevin Boyle and Ms Françoise Hampson.

3. The Government of Turkey were represented by Mr Riza Türmen,

their Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe.

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

4. The facts of the case, which are in dispute between the parties,

are set out in the Commission's decision on admissibility of

11 September 1995, annexed hereto, and may be summarised as follows:

5. According to the applicant, as an act of vengeance for a PKK

raid, Government security forces attacked his village on 10 August 1993

and razed it to the ground. This operation of destruction apparently

took two days.

6. When the applicant returned to the village after these two days,

almost all of the 60 households in the village had been burnt and

destroyed. No habitable houses were left in the village. Also the

house in which the applicant and his family lived was destroyed.

7. The applicant has not received any explanation for the alleged

destruction of his home, his possessions and his village. Nor has he

been interviewed by the prosecutor or any other authority in connection

with this destruction or received any assistance whatsoever arising

from this military attack.

8. In response to the Government's allegations to the contrary, the

applicant submits that following the alleged events he has frequently

petitioned the authorities, including the appointed mayor, about his

losses. He has submitted oral and written petitions seeking

compensation. He has had a lawyer draw up a written petition for

submission to the authorities but they refused to accept his petition.

The applicant has not supplied the Commission with any documentary

evidence of these attempts to obtain compensation or redress.

9. According to the Government, the applicant's village has indeed

been abandoned by its inhabitants but as a result of the economic

hardship suffered through the activities of the PKK in the area rather

than as a consequence of any action on the part of the security forces.

Following the departure of the villagers the houses deteriorated and,

given that their roofs were made of mud, collapsed.

10. Following the communication of the present application to the

Turkish Government in May 1994, the public prosecutor of the Lice

district commenced a preliminary investigation into the incident.

11. On 21 February 1995 the public prosecutor issued a decision of

non-jurisdiction and the file was transferred to the District

Administrative Council under the special procedure for the prosecution

of public officials.

12. On 27 June 1996 the District Administrative Council decided

unanimously not to start any criminal proceedings against the security

forces for lack of evidence.

13. The applicant complained to the Commission that a raid was

carried out by the security forces on his village, in the course of

which his house and possessions were destroyed. He invoked various

Articles of the Convention - Article 3 (the prohibition on inhuman and

degrading treatment), Article 6 (the right of access to court),

Article 8 (the right to respect for family life and the home),

Article 13 (the right to effective national remedies for Convention

breaches), Article 14 (the prohibition on discrimination) and

Article 18 (the prohibition on using authorised Convention restrictions

for ulterior purposes), as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (the

right to property).

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

14. The application was introduced on 9 February 1994 and registered

on 24 February 1994.

15. On 9 May 1994 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48

para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the

application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to

submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.

16. The Government's observations were submitted on 1 March 1995

after two extensions of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The

applicant replied on 15 May 1995 after an extension of the time-limit.

17. On 11 September 1995 the Commission declared the application

admissible. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was

sent to the parties on 14 September 1995. The parties were invited to

submit such further information or observations on the merits as they

wished. They were also invited to indicate the oral evidence they might

wish to put before Delegates of the Commission.

18. On 6 December 1995 the Government submitted additional

information to the Commission. On 19 December 1995 the Commission

received a letter from the applicant directly stating that the

statements contained in his application were incorrect and that he had

not authorised any persons to act on his behalf. On 26 March 1996 the

applicant's representatives commented on the submissions of 6 and

19 December 1995.

19. On 13 April 1996 the Commission decided to take oral evidence in

the applicant's case. It notified the parties by letter of

25 April 1996 requesting them, inter alia, to indicate which persons

they wished to be heard by the Delegates.

20. On 13 June 1996 the applicant submitted proposals for the taking

of oral evidence. The Government submitted information requested by the

Commission on 22 August 1996, 20 September 1996 and 24 January 1997.

21. A hearing in order to take oral evidence in the present case was

scheduled to be held from 10 to 14 March 1997 in Ankara.

22. By letter of 3 March 1997 the applicant's representatives

informed the Commission that they had been unable to establish contacts

with the applicant or any of the proposed witnesses.

23. On 6 March 1997, the Commission decided not to proceed with the

hearing and to seek the parties' views as to the future proceedings.

24. By letter of 29 March 1997, the Government requested the

Commission to strike the application out of its list of pending cases.

25. By letter of 4 April 1997, the applicant's representatives

requested the Commission to grant them a reasonable delay for

establishing contacts with the applicant in order to seek clarification

as to his wish to continue with his application.

26. On 12 April 1997 the Commission decided to grant the applicant's

representatives a delay until 14 July 1997 to establish contacts with

the applicant. When this time-limit expired, no reaction had been

received from the applicant's representatives.

27. On 15 September 1997 the Commission decided to strike the present

application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 30

para. 1 (a) of the Convention.

28. It adopted the present Report and decided to transmit it to the

Committee of Ministers and the Parties for information and to publish

it. The following members of the Commission were present when the

Report was adopted:

Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

Mrs. M. HION

MM. R. NICOLINI

A. ARABADJIEV

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

29. The Commission notes that the applicant's representatives

apparently have been unable to establish any contacts with the

applicant.

30. The Commission finds that, in these circumstances, the applicant

has failed to keep his representatives informed of his whereabouts and

must, therefore, be considered to have lost interest in pursuing his

application to the Commission.

31. In the light of the above considerations, the Commission

concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application,

within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.

32. Moreover, as regards the issues raised in the present case, the

Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect

for Human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the

further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1

in fine of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE APPLICATION No. 23530/94 OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES;

ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;

DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers and

the Parties for information, and to publish it.

H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL

Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

Menu

BEYAZ v. TURKEY

BEYAZ v. TURKEY