Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
6 cases against Turkey

(Application Nos. 54461/00+ (judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007), 50690/99 (judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008), 31918/02 (judgment of 6/03/2007, final on 6/06/2007), 50290/99 (judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008), 31695/02 (judgment of 29/01/2008, final on 29/04/2008) and 16254/02 (judgment of 01/07/2008, final on 01/10/2008)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern a breach of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy as there was no appeal in domestic law before a national court whereby they might contest transfer decisions taken concerning them by the prefect of the region subject to the state of emergency (violations of Article 13) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
 - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)107

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments
in the 6 cases against Turkey

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the lack of an effective remedy whereby the applicants might challenge decisions by the prefect of a region subject to state of emergency to transfer the applicants (teachers, university staff, agronomists) to cities outside the region. The Court noted that Article 4 (g) of Legislative Decree No. 285 conferred considerable prerogatives on prefects concerning the transfer of officials and found that Turkish law offered no mechanism whereby the applicants might appeal against such decisions concerning them (violations of Article 13).

I.	Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a)  Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
Soysal (54461/00)	-	2 000 EUR	1 150 EUR	3 150 EUR
Paid on 14/08/2007	
Kızılkaya (50690/99)	No just satisfaction 	
Ünlü Kazım (31918/02)	-	500 EUR	1 000 EUR	1 500 EUR
Paid on 5/09/2007	
Ürküt (50290/99)	-	500 EUR	-	500 EUR
Paid on 12/05/2008	
Aydın Fahrettin (31695/02)	-	500 EUR	-	500 EUR
Paid on 02/07/2008	
Beyaz
(16254/02)	-	500 EUR	-	500 EUR
Paid on 22/12/2008	

b) Individual measures

In these cases individual measures are linked to general measures (see Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)97).

II.	General measures

 General measures have already been taken in the case of Güneri and others (Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)97). In particular, Legislative Decree No. 285 instituting the state of emergency was repealed in November 2002. Given that this decree is no longer in force, ordinary applicable law may be relied on to ensure sufficient guarantees to all individuals concerning their complaints under the Convention.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention.