CASE OF KAYA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
(Application no. 4451/02)
24 October 2006
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kaya and Others v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr J.-P. Costa,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze,
Mrs A. Mularoni,
Mrs E. Fura-Sandström,
Mrs D. Jočienė,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 October 2005 and 3 October 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Facts as submitted by the parties
B. Documents submitted by the parties
The petition of Efendi Kaya to the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor, dated 28 November 1996, requesting the authorities to carry out an investigation into his father’s disappearance.
The petition of Şefik Kaya to the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor, dated 28 November 1996, requesting information about his brother’s whereabouts.
The police statement of Ahmet Yaşar, dated 4 December 1996.
The letter of the Diyarbakır Gendarmerie Commander to the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor, dated 5 January 1997, stating that Hakkı Kaya had not been taken into custody.
The decision of the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor, dated 17 March 1997, declaring a lack of jurisdiction and transferring the file to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office.
The letter of the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, dated 27 March 1997.
The police statement of Efendi Kaya, dated 7 September 1998.
The petition of Efendi Kaya to the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor’s office, dated 28 January 2000, requesting information as to Hakkı Kaya’s whereabouts.
The police statement of Efendi Kaya, dated 12 June 2000.
The police statement of Recep Girçek, dated 13 June 2000.
The periodic follow-up reports from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to the Diyarbakır Public Proscutor’s Office between 15 June 2000 and 12 December 2003 (8 in all).
The police statement of Efendi Kaya dated 22 March 2001.
A copy of the Ülkede Özgür Gündem newspaper dated 11 March 2004, including the interview with Abdülkadir Aygan.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.”
A. The disappearance of Hakkı Kaya
B. Alleged inadequacy of the domestic investigation
40. The Court considers that the deficiencies described above are sufficient to conclude that the national authorities failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Hakkı Kaya. There has therefore been a breach of the State’s procedural obligation under Article 2 to protect the right to life.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
A. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
B. Article 13 of the Convention
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
56. The Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, “failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part”.
57. In the instant case, on 6 October 2005 the Court invited the applicants to submit their claims for just satisfaction by 5 December 2005. As the applicants requested an extension of time, the Court renewed the deadline until 5 March 2006. However, they did not submit any such claims within the specified time limit nor did they request a further extension. The Court received the applicants’ just satisfaction claims on 7 July 2006, four months after the expiry of the time-limit. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants failed to comply with the time-limits or to display due diligence in submitting their just satisfaction claims. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under Article 41 of the Convention (see Ormancı and Others v. Turkey, no. 43647/98, §§ 48-51, 21 December 2004; Şirin v. Turkey, no. 47328/99, § 29, 15 March 2005; Yayan v. Turkey, no. 66848/01, § 25, 2 February 2006).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Joins to the merits the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and dismisses it;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the disappearance of the applicants’ relative;
7. Dismisses the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 October 2006, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé J.-P. Costa