PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. H. DANELIUS

                 JOINED BY Mr. C.A. NØRGAARD

        ON THE ISSUE UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONVENTION

     I have voted against the Commission's conclusions in paras. 242

(regarding Article 13 of the Convention) and 255 (regarding Article 25

of the Convention) of the Report.

     As regards Article 13, I interpret the applicants' complaints

regarding the absence of legal remedies as relating, at least

essentially, to their main complaints regarding violations of their

rights to respect for their family life and home and their property

rights, which are "civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 of the

Convention. Consequently, I consider that, in view of the finding of

a violation of Article 6, no separate issue arises under Article 13.

     As regards Article 25, I agree with the general remarks in

paras. 252 and 253 of the Report. However, when considering whether

there has been an interference with the applicants' right of individual

petition, I note that Hüseyin Akdivar and Ahmet Ciçek (born in 1967),

who were asked questions about applications to the Commission and were

requested to sign statements in this regard, were both found not to be

applicants (see paras. 179 and 181 of the Report). As regards the

persons who did lodge the present application, there is no evidence of

any interference with their right of individual petition. In these

circumstances, I cannot find that in the present case Turkey has failed

to comply with its obligations under Article 25.

                                                  (Or. French)