AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 39553/98
by Harun ABiLOGLU and 96 others
against Bulgaria
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 20 May 1998, the following members being present:
MM J.-C. GEUS, President
M.A. NOWICKI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
Mrs G.H. THUNE
MM F. MARTINEZ
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
A. ARABADJIEV
Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 27 August 1996 and
15 January 1998 by Harun Abiloglu and 96 others against Bulgaria and
registered on 28 January 1998 under file No. 39553/98;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, who are of Turkish ethnic origin, were born and
lived in Bulgaria and were Bulgarian nationals at least until 1989.
They are currently Turkish citizens, residing in Turkey, most of them
apparently having also preserved or restored their Bulgarian
citizenship. Before the Commission the applicants are represented by
Mr Resit Sasihüseyinoglu, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the case as submitted by the applicants may be
summarised as follows.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
Background of the case
In 1984 the Bulgarian communist regime embarked on a campaign
aiming at the assimilation of persons of Turkish origin. It appears
that in 1984 - 1985 several hundred thousand persons were forced to
change their Turkish names into Bulgarian-sounding names. This was
done with the help of the army and of the police, who often resorted
to arbitrary detention and internments of those who refused to change
their names. During clashes with the authorities, several persons were
killed.
In May 1989 the Bulgarian communist regime allowed all persons
of Turkish origin to leave the country and to travel to Turkey.
Although the authorities at the time attempted to present the mass
exodus which followed as a voluntary "trip", it has widely been seen
as a forced emigration. Persons of Turkish origin had apparently been
under pressure, direct or indirect, to leave the country.
Repressions against the applicants
Each of the applicants has been subjected to repressions between
1984 and 1989.
Mr Abiloglu was forcefully kept between 13 January and
17 February 1985 in a village where the Turks from the region were
brought. The village was surrounded by soldiers. On an unspecified
date in February 1985 all persons kept in the village were called to
choose a Bulgarian name from a pre-prepared list. They did as
requested under the threat of ill-treatment. Following his return to
his home, Mr Abiloglu, who was a teacher, was arrested in April 1985
and kept in detention incommunicado for about 30 - 40 days, and then
sent to prison, from where he returned in November 1985. In 1989 he
was forced to leave Bulgaria.
Another applicant alleges that her husband was shot and killed
in December 1984 when he was participating in a demonstration in
protest against the forceful change of the Turkish names. Allegedly
on the instruction of the secret police, the death certificate marked
only that her husband had died from a haemorrhage in the lungs, without
any mention that he had been shot.
Those of the applicants who were convicted in 1985 or later on
charges of anti-state activities and requested, after 1989, a revision
of their judgments, were successful and their convictions were quashed.
The applicants have not explained whether they applied to the
rehabilitation commissions set up under the 1991 Rehabilitation Law
(see below) or whether they received compensation.
The property of some of the applicants was confiscated or they
were compelled to sell it at low prices or to abandon it when they had
to leave Bulgaria during the forced exodus in the summer of 1989.
After 1990 some of them were apparently able to recover their property.
In 1997 the applicants' lawyer wrote to the Chief Public
Prosecutor demanding the punishment of those responsible for the
repressions but allegedly did not receive a response.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
a. On 30 March 1990 the Parliament adopted a Decision on Political
and Civil Rehabilitation of Convicted Persons and Victims of
Repressions (reshenie za politicheska i grazhdanska reabilitatzia na
osudeni i represirani litza, D.V. br. 30/1990), which provided for
procedures for rehabilitation of victims of repressions.
The Decision was superseded in 1991 by more comprehensive
legislation, the Law on Political and Civil Rehabilitation of Victims
of Repressions (Zakon za politicheska i grazhdanska reabilitatzia na
represirani litza, D.V. br. 50/1991) (the Rehabilitation Law).
Under this law persons who have been unlawfully detained,
convicted, or subjected to other repressions, inter alia, based on
their origin, or during the campaign for the forceful change of the
names of the Bulgarian Turks, obtain rehabilitation (Section 1).
Those of them who were convicted for anti-State and other
particular crimes, who were detained in camps or interned are entitled
to a lump-sum compensation (Section 2). The time spent in prison, in
detention or internment is recognised as time spent in employment for
a state retirement pension or for other purposes (Section 7).
A lump-sum compensation is also payable to the heirs of those who
have been killed in clashes during the forceful change of names
(Section 3 para. 2). In addition, these heirs, as well as the heirs
of those who committed suicide or disappeared during the forceful
change of names, are entitled to a pension (Section 8).
The Rehabilitation Law set up regional commissions and a central
commission for political rehabilitation, which could be seized within
a three years' time-limit from the date of the law's entry into force
in 1991. The regional commissions were examining the requests
submitted to them and deciding whether an applicant had or had not been
a victim of repressions within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Law.
Their decisions were subject to appeal to the central commission.
b. Another law, adopted in 1991, aims at correcting injustices
caused by the forced exodus of the Bulgarian Turks in the summer of
1989. This is the Law on Restitution of Real Property of Bulgarian
Citizens of Turkish Origin Who Sought to Travel to Turkey or to Other
Countries in the Period May - September 1989 (Zakon za vazstanoviavane
na sobstvenostta varhu nedvizhimi imoti na balgarski grazhdani ot
turski proizhod, napravili postapki za zaminavane v Republika Turtzia
i drugi strani prez perioda mai - septemvri 1989).
Restitution of property which had been sold at unreasonably low
prices, under duress, is also possible under Section 27 of the Law on
Obligations and Contracts.
In all cases the courts are competent to examine restitution
claims in ordinary civil proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain of the repressions in 1984 - 1989 and
seek compensation therefor.
They also complain that the Bulgarian authorities currently
refuse to prosecute those responsible for the repressions.
Some of the applicants further state that they currently cannot
recover property taken from them in or before 1989.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain of the killings, unlawful detention,
forced change of their names and other repressions to which they were
subjected between 1984 and 1989. They seek compensation for their
suffering.
However, the Commission recalls that the Convention only governs,
for each Contracting Party, facts subsequent to its entry into force
with respect to that Party. Bulgaria ratified the Convention and
recognised the right to individual petition as of 7 September 1992.
It follows that all complaints about repression by the communist regime
in the years 1984 - 1989 and the alleged lack of sufficient
compensation therefor are outside the Commission's competence ratione
temporis and that, therefore, these complaints have to be rejected as
being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
2. Insofar as some of the applicants may be understood as claiming
that they have been refused their right to a lump-sum compensation, to
a pension, or to other payments provided for under the Rehabilitation
Law, assuming that this complaint may fall to be examined under Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention, the Commission notes that
the applicants have not submitted any information indicating whether
or not they applied for rehabilitation and compensation.
The Commission finds, therefore, that the applicants have not
exhausted the domestic remedies available to them under Bulgarian law
as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected
under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
3. The applicants further complain that those responsible for the
repression have not been punished.
However, the Commission observes that the Convention does not
guarantee a right to institute criminal proceedings against third
persons (see, inter alia, No. 7116/75, D.R. 7, p. 91).
It follows that this part of the application has to be rejected
as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the
Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
4. Insofar as certain applicants may be understood as complaining
that they currently cannot recover property unlawfully taken from them
during the years 1984 - 1989, the Commission is not required to decide
whether or not the facts submitted by the applicants disclose any
appearance of a violation of the Convention as they failed to bring
civil actions before the Bulgarian courts and have not, therefore, in
accordance with Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, exhausted the
remedies available under Bulgarian law. It follows that the remainder
of the application must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3
(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
ANNEX
LIST OF APPLICANTS
Harun ABiLOGLU
Hüseyin ADALI
Mücettin AKBASÇAVUS
Seydali AKGÜN
Mustafa ARABACI
ibrahim ATASOY
Selahattin ATASOY
Turgay ATASOY
Necibe AZIS
Ismet BALKANLI
Yunaus BAYRAMOGLU
Mümin BERKEM
Gülgün BiLEN
Saddettin BiLEN
Cemil BiRTANE
Mümin ÇAKIR
Adil ÇAVUS
Hasan ÇAVUS
Hasan ÇETIN
Seyitahmet CENK
Eyüp CESUR
Hazan DÖNMEZ
isa ERCAN
Ömer Osman ERENDORUK
Saban ERGÜL
O.G.
Ali GÖL
Muhammet GÖLCÜKLÜ
Halil GÜLiSTAN
Ömer GÜNES
Halil ibrahim GÜVEN
Enver HATiPOGLU
ismail HÜSEYINOGLU
Necmettin iNANÇ
Sabri iSKENDER
Mehmet KAHRAMAN
Mustafa KARAALi
Mehmet KARAALi
Ahmet KARABEKiR
Gülnaz KARABEKiR
Ahmet KARACA
Fehim KARADUMAN
Fikret KARAGÖZ
Gültekin KARAMAN
Nesibe KARAMAN
Bedri KASAP
Hasan KAVONOZOGLU
Halil ibrahim KAYA
ibrahim Mustafov KELESOV
Ahmet KiTAPÇI
Celil KORKMAZ
Alvan KÖYBASI
ismail KURTULDU
Osman KURTULDU
Riovan KURTULMUS
Ali MUTLU
Mustafa NURiOGLU
Hasan OCAKLI
Ali ÖNDER
Sefer ORAL
Ali ORMANLI
Hüseyin OSMANOGLU
ismail ÖZGÜR
Niyazi ÖZGÜR
Enver ÖZKAN
Ali ÖZTÜRK
Hayrettin ÖZTÜRK
Mustafa ÖZTÜRK
Remzi ÖZTÜRK
Hasan ÖZYiGiT
Zehra SAFETOGLU
Yusuf SALINOGLU
Cemal SARAÇOGLU
Sevket SENYÜZ
Sezgin TARAKÇI
Basri TATA
Kazim TATA
Hüseyin TEPiK
ismail ULUBEY
Mehmet VATANSEVER
Alis YANAR
ismail YANGIN
Sadullah YENiDOGN
Zeynel YIKILMAZ
Ali YILDIZ
Cumaziye YILDIZ
Turgut YILDIZ
Ahmet YILMAZ
Hüsnü YILMAZ
Ahmet YÜCETÜRK
Feyzullah YÜCETÜRK
Tensile YÜCETÜRK
Zülbiye YÜCETÜRK
Mehmet ZAFER
Ibrahim ZAFER
Hanife ZAFER
Zeynep ZAFER
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy