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

CASE OF KISMIR v. TURKEYPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GÖLCÜKLÜ

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: May 31, 2005

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

CASE OF KISMIR v. TURKEYPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GÖLCÜKLÜ

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: May 31, 2005

Cited paragraphs only

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MULARONI

Unlike the majority, I believe that it is necessary for the Court to examine separately the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 14 of the Convention.

After examining tens and tens of similar applications, all lodged, without exception, by Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin, and very often concluding that there was a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the Court should, to my mind, at least consider that there could be a serious problem under Article 14 of the Convention as well.

This does not mean, of course, that in the end the Court will invariably find that there has been a violation of Article 14. However, I cannot agree with the majority approach, which to me is tantamount to considering that the prohibition on discrimination in this type of case is not an important issue.

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GÖLCÜKLÜ

(Translation)

To my great regret, I cannot agree with the majority ’ s opinion and, consequently, its conclusion with regard to the application of Article 41, especially the award of compensation for pecuniary damage (point 9 of the operative provisions).

The applicant claims that her son had been offered a place at university. Thus, had he lived, he would have completed his studies; he would have had a profession or trade, would have received a salary and, subsequently, would have supported his mother, who did not have sufficient income of her own. All this places the “loss of earnings” in a hypothetical future (see paragraphs 146–147 of the judgment).

It goes without saying that compensation for pecuniary damage (loss of earnings) must be assessed in the light of the real factual situation at the material time, and not on the basis of supposition and speculation. It is for that reason that I cannot share the Court ’ s conclusion on this point.

[1] 1 . Autolysis: Enzymatic self-digestion of cells or tissues after death.

[2] 1. Petechia : Petechia are tiny purple or red spots on the skin that are caused by small areas of bleeding under the skin. Physical evidence suggestive of asphyxiation would include the presence of petechial haemorrhages in the eyes, face, lungs and neck area.

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846