Resolution CM/ ResDH (2012)62 [1]

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

PaÅŸaoÄŸlu against Turkey

(Application No. 8932/03, judgment of 08/07/2008, final on 08/10/2008)

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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns unjustified interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private and family life due to the rejection of his request for renewal of his passport (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the mea s ures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee ’ s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, the respondent state paid the a p plicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

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

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) 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 of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2012)6 2

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

PaÅŸaoÄŸlu against Turkey

Introductory case summary

The case concerns unjustified interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private and family life due to the rejection of his request for renewal of his passport in 1999. The applicant, who resides with his wife and daughter in Greece , was denied renewal on account of a restriction registered in his name by the Ministry of the Interior.

The European Court observed that the measure imposed on the applicant did not stem from criminal proceedings or the execution of a detention order. The restriction in question was based on the applicant ’ s family ties with a certain Georgios Andreadis , who was not permitted entry to Turkey , and by the existence of a “restriction notice” to which the applicant had no access. The Court concluded that to maintain the measure for a long period in the absence of any criminal charge against the applicant was disproportionate and could not be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society” (violation of Article 8).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

5000 EUR

267 EUR

5267 EUR

Paid on 06/01/2009

b) Individual measures

The restriction notice on the applicant ’ s passport was lifted and there is no restriction on the applicant ’ s entering and leaving the Turkish territory. The applicant is not wanted by the authorities in connection with any offence.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The European Court ’ s judgment was translated into Turkish, published on official website of the Ministry Justice ( http://www.inha k -bb.adalet.gov.tr ) and sent out to the relevant authorities, namely the Constitutional Court , Court of Cassation, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice. The Turkish authorities considered that the problem revealed by this judgment was an isolated one and that the publication and dissemination of the Court ’ s judgment would therefore be sufficient to prevent similar violations in the future.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 11 36 th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies .