Resolution CM/ResDH(2008) 61 [1]

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Sophia Gu ð rún Hansen against Turkey

(Application No. 36141/97, judgment of 23/09/03 , final on 23/12/03)

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 the failure of the Turkish authorities to take necessary and adequate measures to enforce court decisions granting the applicant, an Icelandic national, visiting rights to her daughters (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 in order to comply with Turkey ' s 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, within the time-limit set, 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 in the judgment, 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

- 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 its examination.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)61

Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Sophia Gu ð rún Hansen against Turkey

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the failure by the Turkish authorities to take necessary and adequate measures to enforce court decisions granting the applicant, an Icelandic national, visiting rights to her daughters between 1992 and 2000. The European Court found that the authorities had failed to seek the advice of social services or the assistance of psychologists with the aim of facilitating the applicant ' s union with her daughters. Nor did they take any steps to locate the children and their father who arranged to be absent with her daughters on each scheduled visit. Furthermore, the fines imposed on the children ' s father for non-compliance with enforcement orders were neither effective nor adequate and no other realistic coercive measures were taken against the former husband (violation of Article 8).

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

50 000 EUR

15 000 EUR

10 000 EUR

75 000 EUR

Paid on 03/05/2004 and 25/09/2004 with interest

b) Individual measures

The visiting rights became unenforceable once the applicant ' s daughters reached the age of eighteen (in June 1999 and October 2000) as they were then considered adults under Turkish law.

Legislative measures taken :

a) On 09/01/2003 Law No. 4787 on the Establishment of Family Law Courts came into force. Under this law, all matters related to family law are dealt with by Family Courts. Judges in these courts are appointed among those specialising in family law. The Ministry of Justice ensures that a pedagogue, a psychologist or a social worker be appointed to every family court.

b) Effective enforcement of access or visiting rights : Article 25 of the Code of Enforcement and Execution of Court Decisions and Bankruptcy Procedures, relating to enforcement of acces rights, provides that the enforcement officer issues an enforcement order requiring access to be given within seven days. Article 25 (a) further provides that in the enforcement order the enforcement officer specifies that access must not be hindered and that failure to comply will constitute a criminal offence and any person who fails to comply with access arrangements specified in the enforcement order shall be liable to prosecution under Article 341. Following the amendments made to Article 341 on 17/07/2003 the term of imprisonment has been increased from 1-3 months to 2-6 months, upon complaint by the person entitled to have access. This sentence may not be reduced or converted into a fine according to Article 352 (b). An additional paragraph has been added to Article 25 with the amendments of 17/07/2003 which now provides that a social worker, a pedagogue, a psychologist or a child development officer shall be present during the enforcement of court decisions concerning access rights.

Other measures :

a) As an efficient response to similar situations as in the Hansen case, the Turkish authorities referred to a recent case concerning the abduction of 12-year-old Ayla Löfvig from Sweden by her father to Elazığ , Turkey (see Written Question No. 462 of 21/01/2005 by Mr Lindblad concerning the right to return of Ayla Löfving). The Committee of Ministers had previously been informed by the Turkish authorities that they had taken legal action, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, in order to find Ayla and secure her return to her home. The whereabouts of the child and her father had been identified and the public prosecutor had decided to initiate legal proceedings in the Elazığ Family Court. In addition, Ayla ' s mother had been able to have daily telephone contact with her daughter at certain hours. Following the intervention of the Turkish authorities, the travel restrictions for Ayla were lifted and she returned to Sweden with her mother.

b) The judgment of the European Court was translated and published in the Ministry of Justice Bulletin of 24/05/2005 (No. 276, p. 25).

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures taken that these measures will prevent new, 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 25 June 2008 at the 1028th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies