Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

PAŞALI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 26029/11 • ECHR ID: 001-186611

Document date: September 7, 2018

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 3

PAŞALI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 26029/11 • ECHR ID: 001-186611

Document date: September 7, 2018

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 7 September 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 26029/11 Hüseyin PAŞAL I and others against Turkey lodged on 7 March 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application mainly concerns the killing of the applicants ’ mother, daughter and sister Ay ş e Pa ş al ı by the latter ’ s former husband ( İ .Y.) and the alleged failure of the State authorities to provide adequate safeguards to protect her right to life. The applicants invoke Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention in this respect.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on the facts of the present case? Have the State authorities complied with their positive obligation to take appropriate steps to safeguard the life of the applicants ’ mother, daughter and sister AyÅŸe PaÅŸalı as required by Article 2 of the Convention, given in particular that they might have been aware of her allegations of domestic violence (see, for instance, Opuz v. Turkey , n o. 33401/02, §§ 128-130, ECHR 2009, and Halime Kılıç v. Turkey , no. 63034/11 , §§ 91 ‑ 102, 28 June 2016 )?

2. Was there an adequate legal and administrative framework in place at the material time to protect women against domestic violence?

(a) If so, were the protective measures envisaged under the relevant laws applied in an effective manner on the present facts to prevent violence against Ayşe Paşalı ? What was the legal basis for the Ankara Family Court ’ s refusal to apply the protective measures available under section 1 of Law no. 4320 despite Ayşe Paşalı ’ s express request?

(b) Did the criminal-law system, as applied in the instant case, have an adequate deterrent effect capable of ensuring the effective prevention of the unlawful acts committed by Ayşe Paşalı ’ s former husband İ.Y.?

3. Was the alleged lack of protection of women against domestic violence, as demonstrated in the present case, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 2 (see, for instance, Opuz , cited above, §§183-202, and Halime Kılıç , cited above, §§ 112-122)?

The Government are invited to submit the investigation and case files pertaining to all the criminal complaints lodged by Ayşe Paşalı against her former husband .

APPENDIX

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255