Resolution CM/ ResDH (2012) 142 [1]

Mürsel Eren against Turkey

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 60856/00, judgment of 07/02/2006, final on 03/07/2006)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-D D ( 2012)767E );

Recalling that the respondent State ’ s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)767E );

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

DECLARES that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

EXECUTION

of European Court of Human Rights Judgment

in the case of EREN I TURKEY (60856/2000) dated 7 February 2006

ACTION REPORT

A. FACTS

1. The applicant, M ü rsel EREN ("the applicant"), complained that even though he had received a high score in the university entrance exam, his exam was cancelled by an academic committee composed of three professors, without relying on a lawful reason or concrete evidence in the decision, and therefore his right to education was violated.

B. CONTENT OF THE JUDGMENT

2. With its judgment dated 7 February 2006, the European Court of Human Rights ("the Court") found the applicant ’ s complaint justified and held that there was a violation of Article 2 of the Additional Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention").

C. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES:

3. The just satisfaction awarded by the Court was paid to the applicant and the relevant payment documents have already been submitted to the Committee of Ministers.

4. Upon the applicant ’ s appeal, the proceedings were re-opened and the judgm ent regarding the cancellation of the applicant ’ s exam was quashed with the 8111 Chamber of the State Council ‘ s decision dated 19.01.2007. The decision of the 8111 Chamber became final with the approval decision of the Ge neral Board of Administrative Cases of the State Council dated 23.12.20 1 0. Subsequently, necessary information was given by the OSYM (Student Selection and Placement Centre) to the Ankara University Chancery for the placement of the applicant to the Ankara University Faculty of Law, which was the I 51 faculty on the applicant ’ s list of preferred schools.

D. GENERAL MEASURES:

I -Translation and Publication of the Judgment:

7. The Eren judgment of the ECtHR was translated into Turkish and published on the official web-site of Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Justice. This judgment is available at http://www.inhak.ad a let.g o v.tr .

8. The translation of the judgment was sent to the local court that rendered the decision, the

State Council and the Ministry of Interior.

II. Execution of the Judgment:

14. The judgment in question is related to an isolated situation that requires no general measure to be taken. The Turkish Government have taken all necessary individual measures for the execution of the judgment, and there is no other individual measure that should be taken. In the light of the information given above, Turkey has taken necessary steps for the execution of the judgment, and therefore, the judgment should be removed from the examination process of the Committee of Ministers.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 11 50 th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies .