Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)97 [1]

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Güneri and others and 5 other cases against Turkey

(see details in Appendix)

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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the absence of an effective remedy against the transfer of the applicants ' posts to other towns under the state of emergency legislation (violation of Article 13) and (in the cases of Güneri and Others and Yeşilgöz) denial of access to members of an association and of a political party to certain towns under state of emergency rule (violation of Articles 11 and 13, 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 judgments;

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 plicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (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 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

- general measures preventing similar violations;

Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state to that effect, the details of which appear in the appendix,

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 these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)97

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Güneri and others and 5 other cases against Turkey

Introductory case summary

The cases concern the absence of an effective remedy against decisions taken by the governor of a region under a state of emergency to transfer the posts of the applicants (who are teachers and public hospital employees, as well as members of trade unions) to towns outside the state of emergency region. The Court noted that Article 4 (g) of Decree-Law No. 285 granted the governor wide ‑ ranging powers with regard to the transfer of posts, and thus found that there was no remedy available under Turkish law to enable the applicants to challenge those decisions (violations of Article 13).

The cases of Güneri and Others and Yeşilgöz also concern the refusal by the governor of a region under state of emergency to allow members of an association and of a political party access to certain towns under state of emergency rule, pursuant to Article 11(k) and (m) of Law No. 2935 on the state of emergency, which provides that entry of individuals to regions under state of emergency rule, or to areas in such regions, may be limited or prohibited for reasons of public security or public order. According to Article 7 of Legislative Decree No. 285, declaring the state of emergency, no administrative decision taken by the governor of a region under the state of emergency rule will be subject to judicial review.

The European Court found that the decision to prohibit the applicants ' entry could not be considered as meeting a “pressing social need”, first, because the Governor had given no reason for his decision and secondly because there was no evidence to suggest that the planned visit was liable to serve as a platform to advocate violence or the rejection of democracy, or to have any potentially harmful consequences that would justify its prohibition (violation of Article 11). The Court further found that the applicants had no effective domestic remedy whereby they might have challenged the decision of the governor (violation of Article 13).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Date of judgment

Final on

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Date of payment

Güneri and Others

42853/98

12/07/2005

12/10/2005

-

EUR 6,500

EUR 1,090

28/12/2005

Yeşilgöz

45454/99

20/09/2005

20/12/2005

-

EUR 1,500

EUR 2.179

16/03/2006

Akat

45050/98

20/09/2005

20/12/2005

-

EUR 500

EUR 1,000

17/03/2006

BulÄŸa

43974/98

20/09/2005

20/12/2005

-

EUR 5,000

EUR 3,315

17/03/2006

Ertaş Aydın

43672/98

20/09/2005

20/12/2005

-

EUR 2,000

EUR 2,000

17/03/2006

Ademyılmaz and Others

41496/98

21/03/2006

03/07/2006

-

EUR 3,500

-

02/10/2006

b) Individual measures

In these cases individual measures are linked to general measures.

II. General measures

Legislative Decree No. 285 declaring the state of emergency was cancelled in November 2002. Since the decree is no longer in force, current legislation provides sufficient safeguards to all individuals for grievances under the Convention. In addition the judgment of the European Court in the case of Güneri and others was translated and circulated to the relevant authorities, including the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations found in these cases, 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 20 June 2007 at the 997th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.