PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE G ÖLCÜKLÜ

To my great regret I am unable to share the opinion of the majority of the Court regarding its finding of a violation of Article 13 and differ on a point in the application of Article 41 as concerns the way in which the costs and expenses should be paid in this case:

1. With regard to violation of Article 13, I consider that where the Court finds a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect, as the majority did in the instant case, no separate issue arises under Article 13, since the finding of a violation of Article 2 takes account of the fact that there has been neither an effective inquiry nor a satisfactory procedure after the incident.

For more details on that subject, I refer to my dissenting opinion in the Ergi v. Turkey judgment of 28 July 1998 ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV), the Akkoç v. Turkey judgment of 10 October 2000, and the Taş v. Turkey judgment of 14 October 2000.

2. Nor do I share the majority’s opinion that the sum awarded for costs should be paid into the applicant’s London bank account. Is it not astonishing that an applicant, a Turkish national, living in a small village or hamlet in a remote corner of south-eastern Anatolia should have bank accounts in London? If certain counsel have problems with their clients, this is no concern of the respondent State, since the contract between the lawyer and his client is a private one involving themselves, and the respondent State is not a party to disputes between them. I am of the opinion that if costs are to be paid in a London bank account, the charges of the bank who carry out the transfer of the sum should be deducted from the sum awarded to the applicant as costs and expenses.

On that point too I refer to my detailed dissenting opinion in the Salman v. Turkey judgment of 27 June 2000.

[1] 1. Note by the Registry: Protocol No. 11 came into force on 1 November 1998.