PAPAYIANNI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Doc ref: 479/07;24506/08;24730/08;60758/08;4607/10;10715/10 • ECHR ID: 001-119277
Document date: April 2, 2013
- Inbound citations: 27
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 479/07 Angeliki PAPAYIANNI and others against Turkey and five other applications (see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 Ap ril 2013 as a Chamber composed of:
Ineta Ziemele , President, David Thór Björgvinsson , Päivi Hirvelä , Işıl Karakaş , Ledi Bianku , Vincent A. D e Gaetano , Paul Mahoney , judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos , Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above applications lodged as indicated in the annex,
Having regard to the partial decisions adopted on 5 October 2010;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the Government of Cyprus as intervening party,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix.
The Turkish Government (“the Government”) and the Cyprus Government (“the intervening Government ” ) were represented by their Agents.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are relatives of Greek-Cypriot men, reservists or serving in the army, who went missing in July-August 1974 following the invasion of northern Cyprus by Turkish armed forces. These men were listed as missing persons, the information being given to the Red Cross and the United Nations.
The remains of the missing men have been found during exhumations carried out by the United Nations Committee for Missing Persons between 2005 ‑ 9 (“CMP”). Further details are set out in the Annex.
According to the submissions of the parties, the Attorney-General of the “TRNC” (“the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ”) gave instructions to the police to initiate investigations into the deaths. The police made contact with the applicants by telephone and by letter to their lawyers, inviting them to give statements about the events. However the applicants took the view that this was either a form of harassment conduct or unnecessary as their statements had already been given years before and declined to assist. The police also obtained the relevant files from the CMP, including written statements from witnesses and family members. The investigations are ongoing.
COMPLAINTS
All applicants complained under Article 2 about the disappearance and death of their relatives and the lack of an effective investigation into those matters, as well as invoking Articles 3 (as concerns the victim and/or themselves), 5 and 8.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicants complained that there had been no effective investigation into the deaths of their relatives who had gone missing in 1974 and whose remains had been exhumed in the last few years. They invoked Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as relevant:
“1. Everyone ’ s right to life shall be protected by law. ....”
A. Submissions before the Court
The parties ’ observations largely reproduced those submitted in the previous applications before the Court ( Charalambous and Others v Turkey , 46744/07 et al ( dec .) 3 April 2012, paras . 11-46).
B. The Court ’ s assessment
The Court notes that the complaints raised by the applicants about the lack of an effective investigation into the circumstances of the deaths of their relatives are identical to those raised in the Charalambous and Others case. It refers to its findings in that case concerning the investigations launched by the authorities in the “TRNC”:
“65. In conclusion, the Court finds that the investigations have been underway since late 2010 and although some investigative steps have been taken, no, or little, concrete progress appears to have been made. This does not in itself disclose any lack of good faith or will on the part of the authorities. In the circumstances, it is premature to impugn the response of the authorities as ineffective. The Court would not under-estimate the difficulties of finding witnesses who are still alive after this lapse of time and who are able to recall, and willing to give evidence about, past events. However, it would emphasise that the authorities must take reasonable steps to find the available evidence and pursue the practicable leads open to them at this time to discover the perpetrators of any unlawful violence; that in due course an assessment will have to be made as to whether the evidence gathered is sufficient to justify a prosecution; and that the families should be kept informed of any key factual conclusions and procedural developments and any reasoned decisions in this regard. But it is too early for the Court as a supervisory international jurisdiction to reach any findings that the authorities ’ actions are a mere sham or that there is bad faith, wilful footdragging and calculated prevarication involved. Prolonged inactivity and silence by the authorities over a more significant period of time might eventually render such a conclusion possible, but not yet.”
The Court observes that there are no distinguishing features in the present applications which would lead it to differ from its reasoning above.
It follows that at the present stage the applicants ’ complaints under the procedural aspect of Article 2 are premature and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
Insofar as the applicants invoked other provisions of the Convention, the Court finds that these disclose no appearance of a violation of the Convention and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded as a whole pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-Passos Ineta Ziemele Registrar President
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by
479/07
21/12/2006
Angeliki PAPAYIANNI
28/07/1927
Nicosia
Cypriot
Theano PAPAYIANNI KYRIAKOU
15/02/1948
Nicosia
Cypriot
Maria PAPAYIANNI
13/02/1950
Nicosia
Cypriot
Andreani PAPAYIANNI MYRIDAKI
02/12/1952
Athens
Cypriot
Panayiotis KYRIAKOU
17/01/1938
Nicosia
Cypriot
Diamanto KYRIAKOU THEODOTOU
10/09/1966
Nicosia
Cypriot
Kyriakos KYRIAKOU P.
09/02/1969
Nicosia
Cypriot
Achilleas DEMETRIADES
24506/08
15/05/2008
Anastasia IOANNOU IACOVOU
02/03/1930
Limassol
Cypriot
Loukis G. LOUCAIDES
24730/08
22/04/2008
Iacovos IACOVOU
07/06/1972
Limassol
Cypriot
Kyriakoula IACOVOU
23/11/1964
Limassol
Cypriot
Loukis G. LOUCAIDES
60758/08
03/12/2008
Anastasia IOANNOU IACOVOU
02/03/1930
Limassol
Cypriot
Iacovos IACOVOU
07/06/1972
Limassol
Cypriot
Kyriakoula IACOVOU
23/11/1964
Limassol
Cypriot
Kalliopi IOANNOU IACOVOU
14/06/1961
Limassol
Cypriot
Efstathia IOANNOU IACOVOU
17/07/1959
Limassol
Cypriot
Loukis G. LOUCAIDES
4607/10
30/12/2009
Styliani GEORGHIOU
07/05/1951
Latsia
Cypriot
Chrystalla CONSTANTINOU ALLAYIOTOU
13/05/1969
Latsia
Cypriot
Costas CONSTANTINOU
11/02/1971
Latsia
Cypriot
Charalambia KONSTANTINOU MICHAIL
10/02/1975
Aradippou
Cypriot
Achilleas DEMETRIADES
10715/10
09/02/2010
Georghia ANDREOU AGAPIOU
03/11/1948
Nicosia
Cypriot
Savvas AGAPIOU
15/02/1971
Nicosia
Cypriot
Konstantia AGAPIOU
24/04/1972
Nicosia
Cypriot
Kyriacos AGAPIOU
31/08/1973
Nicosia
Cypriot
Achilleas DEMETRIADES