issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 141 (2016)

26.04.2016

Judgments of 26 April 2016

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 16 judgments1.
12 Chamber judgments are listed below; for two others, in the cases of Novikova and Others
v. Russia (applications nos. 25501/07, 57569/11, 80153/12, 5790/13 and 35015/13), and Cumhuriyet
Halk Partisi v. Turkey (no. 19920/13), separate press releases have been issued;
two Committee judgments, which concern issues already submitted to the Court, can be consulted
on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Kardoš v. Croatia (application no. 25782/11)

The applicant, Zita Kardoš, is a Croatian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Zagreb. The case
concerned the alleged failure of the Administrative Court to decide on her complaint about the
demolition of a block of flats which she had co-owned on the Island of Vir (Croatia).
In March 2006 an inspection was carried out of Ms Kardoš’ block of flats. There ensued two separate
decisions by the building inspector for the demolition of the block of flats. Ms Kardoš lodged two
separate appeals against these decisions, which were dismissed by the second-instance body on
15 and 23 May 2006, respectively. She then lodged an administrative complaint. As it was unclear
from this complaint which decision – of 15 or 23 May – she was contesting, the Administrative Court
asked her to be more specific. Ms Kardoš then clarified the ambiguity by replying that she was
complaining about the decision of 15 May. However, in April 2010 the Administrative Court,
assessing her complaint as if it concerned the decision of 23 May 2006, dismissed her complaint as
ill-founded. She lodged a constitutional complaint, alleging that the Administrative Court had
decided on a complaint which she had not actually lodged, which was ultimately declared
inadmissible in December 2010.
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights,
Ms Kardoš alleged that the Administrative Court had failed to examine her complaint about the
demolition of her block of flats on the merits.
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction: 2,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,740 (costs and expenses)

Merčep v. Croatia (no. 12301/12)

Milanković and Bošnjak v. Croatia (nos. 37762/12 and 23530/13)
Both cases concerned complaints about the prolonged pre-trial detention of police officers accused
of war crimes.

1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
The applicant in the first case is Tomislav Merčep, a Croatian national who was born in 1952 and
lives in Zagreb.
The applicants in the second case are Vladimir Milanković and Drago Bošnjak, two Croatian nationals
who were born in 1962 and 1958 respectively and live in Sisak (Croatia).
In December 2010 (first case) and June 2011 (second case) the applicants were arrested on suspicion
of war crimes against the civilian population and investigations were opened against them. Up until
their indictment, that is in June 2011 (first case) and December 2011 (second case), they were placed
in pre-trial detention on grounds of the risk of collusion by suborning witnesses and the gravity of
the charges against them. After their indictment their detention was extended on the grounds of the
gravity of the charges, associated with the risk of public disturbance if they were released. Notably,
when reviewing the applicants’ continued detention, the national courts stressed that, in view of the
gravity of the charges against them (including arbitrary arrests, severe acts of ill-treatment and
summary executions of civilians, including children), their release could cause a threat to public
order and diminish the public’s trust in the judicial system.
Mr Merčep was released in July 2012, after just over one and a half years in pre-trial detention, on
the ground that medical treatment he was receiving in detention for his health problems was
inadequate. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending.
By a judgment of December 2013 Mr Milanković was found guilty as charged and sentenced to eight
years’ imprisonment, subsequently increased on appeal to ten years. By the same judgment
Mr Bošnjak was acquitted due to lack of evidence and released.
Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a
reasonable time or to release pending trial) of the European Convention, the applicants complained
about the national courts’ lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for extending their pre-trial
detention.
No violation of Article 5 § 3 – in both cases

Seagal v. Cyprus (no. 50756/13)

The applicant, Kone Sehana Seagal, was born in 1978 in Marseille (France) and currently lives in
Cyprus. He maintains that he is a French national of Afro-Caribbean descent. The case principally
concerned his detention by the Cypriot authorities and his allegation of ill-treatment by prison
guards and other prisoners whilst in detention at Nicosia Central Prisons and the lack of medical care
for the injuries sustained therefrom.
Mr Seagal has spent various periods in detention in Cyprus: on two occasions for short periods in
January and February 2010, between April and June 2013 following a conviction and concurrent
sentences of three months’ and one month’s imprisonment for the offences of circulating forged
documents, resisting lawful arrest and assaulting and deliberately obstructing a police officer during
the performance of his duties and, lastly, with a view to his deportation from June 2013 to October
2014. The applicant was in fact released in June 2013 after serving his sentence of imprisonment but
was immediately re-arrested on the basis of deportation and detention orders issued against him for
being a “prohibited immigrant” and placed in immigration detention facilities. However, as he did
not have a valid passport or any other valid travel document, he could not be deported. During this
period, and in particular, from November 2013 onwards, the immigration authorities interviewed
Mr Seagal – who refused to provide information as to his real identity – and contacted the French
Embassy and the Ivory Coast Consulate in Cyprus to ascertain whether he was one of their citizens.
All attempts to ascertain Mr Seagal’s identity and obtain a travel document were unsuccessful and
he was released in October 2014.

2
Mr Seagal alleged that on 22 April 2013, while serving his sentence, he was attacked by five
prisoners after refusing to clean their cells. He then fell to the floor, while the prisoners continued to
beat him. He submitted that the prison guards also hit him when he was taken back to his wing. He
further alleged that, having sustained injuries to his face, ear, back and chest, he was only taken to
hospital 24 hours later.
The Government submitted that the incident on 22 April 2013 occurred when Mr Seagal, refusing to
comply with guards’ orders, had attempted to hit a prison guard and one of the guards and two
prisoners had had to intervene and immobilise him. He was immediately seen by the prison doctor
and prescribed medication, and the next day was taken to hospital where he was examined by an
ear and throat specialist. The hospital medical reports indicated that Mr Seagal had a perforated
eardrum and blood in the ear canal.
Following the incident three guards involved gave written statements to the Prison Director
testifying to having pushed aside and immobilised Mr Seagal.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Seagal complained in
particular that he had been seriously injured as a result of the ill-treatment to which he had been
subjected by prison guards and other prisoners. Further relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and
security), he complained about his detention by the Cypriot authorities.
Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment)
Violation of Article 3 (investigation)
Violation of Article 5 § 1 - concerning the applicant’s detention from 21 June 2013 until 24 October
2014
Just satisfaction: EUR 12,700 (non-pecuniary damage)

Kashlev v. Estonia (no. 22574/08)

The applicant, Janek Kashlev, a person of undetermined citizenship, was born in 1987 and lives in
Tallinn.
The case concerned his complaint about the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against him
for causing serious injury. He complained in particular that he had been convicted by a court of
appeal which had overturned his acquittal at first-instance without examining the witnesses who
had been heard at first-instance.
Criminal proceedings were brought against Mr Kashlev and one of his friends, I.J., for attacking
another man, L., outside a nightclub in the early hours of the morning on 22 April 2006 and causing
him life-threatening head injuries as well as permanent damage to his health.
On 30 April 2007 Mr Kashlev was acquitted at first-instance; the criminal proceedings against I.J.
were discontinued as he had died in a car accident in February 2007. The first-instance court heard
evidence from Mr Kashlev and nine eye-witnesses and found that the statements were incoherent
and contradictory. The court also rejected evidence by three of the witnesses on the grounds that
their statements made during the identification procedure – identifying Mr Kashlev as one of the
(probable) attackers – and then in court did not match. Furthermore, one of the witnesses lacked
credibility as she had been able to recognise the colour of Mr Kashlev’s eyes, but not the colour of
his jacket. It also found no reason to doubt I.J.’s statement during the preliminary investigation that
the fight had not involved Mr Kashlev, who had only arrived on the scene afterwards. Nor could it
give less credit to the statements of another eye-witness, S.J., who confirmed that the fight had
been between I.J. and L., merely because he was one of Mr Kashlev’s friends. The court therefore
concluded that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Kashlev had committed
the offence with which he had been charged and acquitted him.

3
The prosecutor appealed and a hearing was heard by the Court of Appeal in September 2007.
Mr Kashlev did not take part in the hearing, having informed the court in writing that he did not wish
to take part and asking for the case to be examined in his absence. Mr Kashlev’s lawyer thus
represented him at the hearing, confirming that his client did not wish to attend. The Court of
Appeal found Mr Kashlev guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, of which
he immediately had to serve two months, the remainder of the sentence being suspended. The
Court of Appeal, assessing the evidence in the case file differently from the first-instance court,
essentially found that the fact that witnesses focused their attention on different details did not
mean that their statements were unreliable or contradictory; it simply reflected the fact that
perception and memory varied from one person to the next. In establishing Mr Kashlev’s guilt the
Court of Appeal therefore took into account the witness statements and identification reports which
had been rejected as evidence by the first-instance court. The Court of Appeal also disagreed with
the first-instance court’s position concerning the eyewitness S.J.’s reliability, as his statements did
not match any of the other witness statements and S.J., I.J. and L. had all been friends, whereas the
other witnesses had had no connection with them. It also noted that Mr Kashlev had made
inconsistent statements during the preliminary investigation and in court, notably as to where he
had been standing when I.J. had hit the victim.
In November 2007 the Supreme Court decided not to examine Mr Kashlev’s appeal.
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial and right to obtain attendance and examination
of witnesses), Mr Kashlev alleged that the Court of Appeal had convicted him only on the basis of the
case file without examining any of the witnesses which had been heard at first instance.
No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)

Cristioglo v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 24163/11)

The applicant, Vasile Cristioglo, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1975 and lives in Chişinău.
The case concerned an allegation of poor conditions of detention.
Mr Cristioglo was arrested in January 2011 on charges of murder and placed in detention. He was
notably detained in Prison no. 13 in Chisinau and Prison no. 5 in Cahul until his release in June 2013.
Before being transferred to the prison in Chisinau in February 2011 he cut open his abdomen as a
sign of protest and was taken to hospital where the wound was treated and he was prescribed
medication for an ear infection.
Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Cristioglo
complained that the conditions of detention in Prisons no. 13 and 5 had been inhuman and
degrading, in particular on account of overcrowding and poor hygiene.
Violation of Article 3 – concerning the conditions of detention in Prison no. 13 in Chisinau
Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 800 (costs and expenses)

Amarandei and Others v. Romania (no. 1443/10)*

The applicants are 26 Romanian nationals who are members or supporters of the “Movement for
Spiritual Integration into the Absolute” (MISA), a not-for-profit association registered under
Romanian law.
The case concerned the applicants’ allegations of abuse during a police operation to search a
number of buildings belonging to the association.
On 18 March 2004 a police operation was carried out in 16 apartment blocks housing members of
MISA who were suspected by the public prosecutor’s office at the Bucharest Court of Appeal of

4
making fraudulent use of computer software to produce and disseminate pornographic images on
the Internet and of sending members of the association abroad for the purposes of prostitution.
Around 130 members of a military anti-terrorist squad took part in the operation. According to the
applicants, the operation began with the doors and windows being broken while most of them were
asleep. Heavily armed and masked members of the armed forces allegedly burst into their rooms
and forced the applicants to lie on the floor until the arrival of the prosecutors, who refused to show
a search warrant or to inform the applicants of the reasons for the operation. The applicants’ mobile
phones and numerous personal items were confiscated. The applicants also allege that they were
insulted and humiliated and were deprived of food and water. They were only allowed to go to the
toilet accompanied by a law-enforcement officer and were forced to leave the door open. The
operation was allegedly filmed and extracts were broadcast in the media. That afternoon, the
applicants were taken to the offices of the prosecution service for questioning. They were allegedly
threatened and insulted with a view to obtaining statements, which were partly dictated by the
prosecutors, relating to their intimate private lives and implicating the leader of the MISA. The
applicants further allege that they were not informed of the reasons for their detention and were
refused access to a lawyer. They were released after several hours in detention and no charges were
brought against them. The Government contest the applicants’ version of events, stating in
particular that no verbal or physical violence was used during the searches or the transfer to the
prosecutor’s office, or when the applicants were being questioned.
On various dates the applicants lodged a number of complaints concerning the abuse to which they
had allegedly been subjected on the day of the operation, the conduct of the prosecutors and the
members of the armed forces, and their detention. The proceedings resulted in decisions not to
prosecute which were upheld by the competent higher courts.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complained of
being subjected to ill-treatment during the police operation on 18 March 2004 and of the lack of an
effective investigation. Under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), they alleged that they had
been detained arbitrarily on 18 March 2004 during the search, during their transfer to the offices of
the prosecution service and when they had been questioned. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect
for private and family life), they complained about the house and body searches carried out, the
seizure of their personal items and the broadcasting in the media of footage filmed during the police
operation.
Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment) – in respect of Liliana Amarandei, Mirela Avădănii,
Nicoleta Roxana Cojocaru, Oana Roxana Doldor, Violeta Enăchescu (Hoscevaia), Elena Simona
Frînculeasa, Mariana Cipriana Lazăr, Amalia Lucachi, Iulia Lupescu, Rose Marie Mândru, Laura
Obreja, Simona Opreapopa, Ana Maria Panescu, Beatrice Camelia Pelin, Rodica Petre, Iuliana Radu,
Elena Sima, Daniel Stanciu, Catrinel Stoenescu, Ştefan Raul Szanto, Tatieana Tănasă, Constantin
Tănase and Florin Mihăiţă Ţuţu
Violation of Article 3 (investigation) – in respect of Liliana Amarandei, Mirela Avădănii, Nicoleta
Roxana Cojocaru, Oana Roxana Doldor, Violeta Enăchescu (Hoscevaia), Elena Simona Frînculeasa,
Mariana Cipriana Lazăr, Amalia Lucachi, Iulia Lupescu, Rose Marie Mândru, Laura Obreja, Simona
Opreapopa, Ana Maria Panescu, Beatrice Camelia Pelin, Rodica Petre, Iuliana Radu, Elena Sima,
Daniel Stanciu, Catrinel Stoenescu, Ştefan Raul Szanto, Tatieana Tănasă, Constantin Tănase and
Florin Mihăiţă Ţuţu
Violation of Article 5 § 1 – in respect of Liliana Amarandei, Mirela Avădănii, Nicoleta Roxana
Cojocaru, Oana Roxana Doldor, Violeta Enăchescu (Hoscevaia), Elena Simona Frînculeasa, Mariana
Cipriana Lazăr, Amalia Lucachi, Iulia Lupescu, Rose Marie Mândru, Marius Monete, Laura Obreja,
Simona Opreapopa, Ana Maria Panescu, Beatrice Camelia Pelin, Rodica Petre, Iuliana Radu, Elena
Sima, Daniel Stanciu, Catrinel Stoenescu, Ştefan Raul Szanto, Tatieana Tănasă, Constantin Tănase
and Florin Mihăiţă Ţuţu
Violation of Article 8 – in respect of all 26 applicants

5
Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 each to Liliana Amarandei, Mirela Avădănii, Nicoleta Roxana Cojocaru,
Oana Roxana Doldor, Violeta Enăchescu (Hoscevaia), Elena Simona Frînculeasa, Mariana Cipriana
Lazăr, Amalia Lucachi, Iulia Lupescu, Rose Marie Mândru, Laura Obreja, Simona Opreapopa, Ana
Maria Panescu, Beatrice Camelia Pelin, Rodica Petre, Iuliana Radu, Elena Sima, Daniel Stanciu,
Catrinel Stoenescu, Ştefan Raul Szanto, Tatieana Tănasă, Constantin Tănase and Florin Mihăiţă Ţuţu,
EUR 6,000 to Marius Monete and EUR 4,500 each to Ioana Mihaela Butum and Liliana Motocel in
respect of non-pecuniary damage

Bereczki v. Romania (no. 25830/08)*

The applicant, Iosif Bereczki, is a Romanian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Oradea
(Romania).
The case concerned the removal of Mr Bereczki’s name from the list of accountants kept by the
expert reports office of the Bihor County Court, and the alleged lack of impartiality of the courts
which had examined the administrative action brought by Mr Bereczki.
Mr Bereczki, who had been regularly appointed by the courts in the area of jurisdiction of the
Oradea Court of Appeal to produce expert reports in the field of accountancy, ceased to be called
after September 2000. He wrote to the President of the Oradea Court of Appeal accusing the expert
reports office of the Bihor County Court of having arbitrarily removed him from the list of experts
because a judge of the County Court had been convicted of corruption following a complaint made
by the applicant. Mr Bereczki was informed that he was no longer on the list because he had not
indicated in writing that he was available to prepare expert reports. At Mr Bereczki’s request, the
County Chamber of Accountants confirmed that he had indicated his availability in writing and that
his name had been forwarded to the expert reports office for inclusion on the list.
On 22 December 2005 Mr Bereczki lodged an administrative action with the Oradea Court of Appeal
against the Ministry of Justice and the expert reports office of the Bihor County Court. He alleged
that he had been excluded arbitrarily from the list between September 2000 and the end of 2005,
and requested that his name be re-entered on the list. He also requested that the case be
transferred, arguing that since the County Court was one of the parties the case could not be heard
within the area of jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. He added that the County Court judges had
been hostile towards him since the conviction of their colleague following Mr Bereczki’s complaint.
His request was refused by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 10 May 2006. Two subsequent
requests for the case to be transferred were also refused.
In a judgment of 8 May 2007 the County Court rejected Mr Bereczki’s claims. He lodged an appeal
with the Oradea Court of Appeal, which dismissed it on 7 February 2008.
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Bereczki complained of a lack of
independence and impartiality on the part of the courts which had examined his case.
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction: EUR 3,600 (non-pecuniary damage)

Costel Popa v. Romania (no. 47558/10)

The applicant, Costel Popa, is a Romanian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Bucharest. The
case concerned the refusal to register an environmental association.
In October 2009 the EcoPolis association, founded by Mr Popa and four other associates, brought
proceedings seeking its registration and requesting to be granted legal personality. The goal of the
association, as declared in its memorandum and articles of association, was to promote the
principles of sustainable development and increase expertise at the public policy level in Romania.

6
The first-instance court, not identifying any irregularity in the application, granted the association
legal personality and ordered its registration. However, following an appeal on points of law lodged
by the prosecuting authorities, the last-instance court rejected the request for registration, finding
that the association’s concepts and objectives ran the risk of being understood as political.
Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Mr Popa complained about the national
courts’ refusal to register the EcoPolis association, without giving him time to rectify any
irregularities in the articles of association – as had been provided for by national law – before ending
the registration process. Mr Popa further submitted in particular that he had wished to found an
association and not a political party.
Violation of Article 11
Just satisfaction: EUR 4,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 800 (costs and expenses)

S.C. Britanic World S.R.L. v. Romania (no. 8602/09)*

The applicant, S.C. Britanic World S.R.L, is a company incorporated under Romanian law which has
its registered office in Mizil.
The case concerned the reopening of civil proceedings relating to the annulment of a contract for
the sale of a plot of land belonging to the applicant company, after the proceedings had ended with
a final judgment.
On 5 December 2003 the managing director of S.C. Britanic World, C.B., who was a contractual
employee of the company, sold a piece of land belonging to the company to company G. under a
notarial deed, on the basis of an authority issued by the manager. Following the sale S.C. Britanic
World dismissed C.B. for negligence, claiming that the authority in question had allowed him to
enter into legal transactions only with the manager’s express agreement.
On 3 March 2005 S.C. Britanic World lodged a criminal complaint against C.B. for forgery of private
documents in relation to the authority under which he had entered into the contract of sale.
However, the public prosecutor found that C.B. had not committed the offence in question and
issued an order discontinuing the proceedings, which was upheld by the Prahova County Court on 3
December 2005.
On 13 May 2005 S.C. Britanic World applied for the annulment of the contract for the sale of the
land. The application was rejected by the Court of First Instance on 4 December 2006 but was
allowed by the County Court on appeal. In its judgment of 10 April 2007 the County Court annulled
the contract of sale on the ground that the sale had been concluded on the basis of an authority that
had not been authenticated beforehand by a notary, although this was a formal requirement for any
notarised deed of sale. That judgment was upheld at final instance by the Ploieşti Court of Appeal on
10 October 2007.
Company G. initially lodged an application to set aside the final judgment of 10 October 2007, which
was rejected by the Court of Appeal on 21 January 2008. It subsequently submitted two applications
for revision of the judgment of 10 April 2007. The first was declared inadmissible, but the second
was allowed by a Court of Appeal judgment of 27 November 2008 which quashed the County Court
judgment of 10 April 2007 and accordingly upheld the first-instance court’s judgment of 4 December
2006.
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), S.C. Britanic World alleged a breach of
the principle of legal certainty on account of the revision of the final County Court judgment of
10 April 2007.
Violation of Article 6 § 1

7
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company. It further awarded
the applicant EUR 2,281 in respect of costs and expenses.

Başbilen v. Turkey (no. 35872/08)

The applicants, Vehbi Başbilen and Keziban Başbilen, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1953
and 1950 respectively and live in Ankara. The case concerned their complaint about the investigation
into the death of their son, Hüseyin Başbilen. Their son had been an engineer for Aselsan, a defence
contractor that produced technology for the Turkish armed forces.
Hüseyin Başbilen’s dead body was found on 5 August 2006 in his car, with a cut to his throat and to
his left wrist. An investigation was immediately launched: crime scene officers took photographs,
drew two sketch maps, took fingerprints and hair samples from the car and found and seized a
number of objects, including a suicide note, a box cutter and the deceased’s briefcase. Following an
autopsy and a number of other steps (including verifying whether the suicide note had been drafted
on the deceased’s workplace computer), the Ankara public prosecutor concluded that Hüseyin
Başbilen had committed suicide and in November 2006 decided to close the investigation. The
applicants lodged an objection with the courts, submitting that their son had been murdered as he
had been working on important projects for Aselsan. The applicants’ appeal was dismissed in
December 2007 when the Forensic Medicine Institute, asked by the courts in April 2007 to prepare a
report concerning the injuries found on the deceased’s body, concluded that it was possible that
Hüseyin Başbilen had killed himself.
Following reports in the media of foreign intelligence services stealing important weapons
technology and then killing those who had not wished to collaborate with them and making their
murders look like suicides, Hüseyin Başbilen’s twin brother lodged a complaint in November 2010
with the prosecuting authorities. A second investigation was thus launched in which the authorities
attempted to remedy shortcomings in the first investigation, notably as concerned the collection and
examination of evidence at the crime scene and the taking of statements from the deceased’s
family. Further enquiries were also carried out, namely examination of the deceased’s credit card
payments just before his death, attempts to find the USB flash drive – which had disappeared during
the first investigation – allegedly containing the suicide note and the issuing of another report
analysing the crime scene. The investigation is currently still pending, with the public prosecutor
most recently, in September 2014, ordering a task force to be constituted to conduct a thorough
investigation.
Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants alleged that the first investigation had
been inadequate and had not clarified the circumstances of the death of their son, whom they did
not believe had committed suicide. Furthermore, although they considered that the prosecuting
authorities had carried out a new and extensive investigation in 2010, this second investigation had
not been capable of rectifying the shortcomings of the first investigation due to the passage of time
and, in any case, it was still pending more than nine years since their son’s death.
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 to the applicants jointly (non-pecuniary damage)

Cangöz and Others v. Turkey (no. 7469/06)

The applicants are 17 Turkish nationals who were born between 1924 and 1974 and all live in
Turkey, with the exception of one, who lives in the Netherlands.
The case concerned the killing on 17 and 18 June 2005 of 17 of the applicants’ relatives, members of
an outlawed organisation in Turkey (the Maoist Communist Party, “the MKP”) who had gone to a

8
rural area near the city of Tunceli to hold a meeting, by the security forces and the subsequent
exhibiting of their bodies in a car park for identification and examination purposes.
According to the Government, the authorities, having received intelligence reports, sent a helicopter
to patrol the area near Tunceli on 17 June 2005 to find the MKP terrorists. On sighting the
helicopter, the terrorist group opened fire on the helicopter. The security forces later arrived in the
area to arrest the terrorists and, despite issuing warnings to surrender, the terrorists opened fire,
injuring a soldier. An armed clash ensued which ended the following day. A prosecutor arrived at the
area the same day, conducted an on-spite inspection, prepared an incident report and opened an
investigation concerning the deaths of the 17 terrorists. The investigation was closed on 20 June
2006, finding it established that the security forces’ actions had been lawful within the context of
self-defence.
The applicants submitted that, hearing on the news on 17 June 2005 that there were armed clashes
taking place between soldiers and members of the MKP, they contacted the local authorities. They
were eventually taken to a nearby military base to identify the 17 members of the MKP who had
been killed. The bodies, displayed in a carpark, were mostly naked as the prosecutor, assisted by two
doctors, had given instructions for the clothes to be removed for examinations to be carried out. The
applicants submitted that the bodies were unrecognisable due to the extent of the injuries. The
autopsy report subsequently confirmed that most of their relatives had been killed by explosives.
According to the applicants, the use of force against their relatives had been excessive and could
have been avoided, given that the security forces had been aware of the arrival of their relatives in
the Tunceli area long before they carried out the military operation. They also notably highlighted
inconsistencies in the two military reports drawn up on the incident, one confirming that surrender
warnings were given by the military and the other – without making reference to any warnings –
stating that armed clashes had begun immediately after the helicopters had been spotted by the
applicants’ relatives. Furthermore, they pointed out that one of those military reports, which
indicated that the prosecutor had never gone to the incident area due to security concerns,
contradicts the Government’s submission that the prosecutor had carried out an on-site inspection.
Moreover, they complained that they had not been allowed to access the investigation file as it had
been classified as confidential, and that, despite their requests, certain steps in the investigation had
never been taken, namely: a request for the prosecutor to visit the incident area; questioning of the
soldiers involved; establishing what weapons had been used by those soldiers; and looking for
fingerprints on the rifles allegedly found next to the bodies of their relatives.
Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants alleged that their relatives had been
deliberately killed by the security forces and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective
investigation into the circumstances of their deaths. Also relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman
or degrading treatment), the applicants alleged that their relatives’ naked bodies had been displayed
at the military base without showing any thought to the dignity of the deceased or their own
feelings.
Violation of Article 2 (right to life)
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
No violation of Article 3
Just satisfaction: EUR 65,000 to each applicant (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 13,677 to the
applicants jointly (costs and expenses)

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive

9
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter
@ECHR_Press.
Press contacts
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

10