AYDIN v. TURKEYPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. N. BRATZA, JOINED BY

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: March 7, 1996

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: March 7, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. N. BRATZA, JOINED BY

MM. S. TRECHSEL, J.-C. SOYER, H.G. SCHERMERS AND B. MARXER

For substantially the reasons given in my separate opinion in

Application No. 21987/93, Aksoy v. Turkey, I see the problem in this

case as concerned not with the right of access to court but rather with

the effectiveness of the remedies available under domestic law in the

particular circumstances of the case.

As in the Aksoy case, while agreeing with the essential reasoning

of the majority of the Commission in paragraphs 191-203 of the Report,

I voted in favour of a violation of Article 13 and not Article 6 of the

Convention.

I would add that I am in full agreement with the remarks made by

Mrs. Thune in her partly dissenting opinion as to the requirements of

Article 13 and as to the particular importance of the role played by

that Article in the present context.

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant