EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Application No. 23530/94
Ramazan Beyaz
against
Turkey
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 15 September 1997)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. THE PARTIES
(paras. 1-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
(paras. 4-13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
(paras. 14-28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 29-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . . . .6
I. THE PARTIES
1. This Report, which is drawn up in accordance with Article 30
para. 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, concerns the application brought by
Ramazan Beyaz against Turkey.
2. The applicant was born in 1964 and at the time of the
introduction of the application resided in Lice, Diyarbakir province.
In the proceedings before the Commission the applicant was represented
by Professor Kevin Boyle and Ms Françoise Hampson.
3. The Government of Turkey were represented by Mr Riza Türmen,
their Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe.
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
4. The facts of the case, which are in dispute between the parties,
are set out in the Commission's decision on admissibility of
11 September 1995, annexed hereto, and may be summarised as follows:
5. According to the applicant, as an act of vengeance for a PKK
raid, Government security forces attacked his village on 10 August 1993
and razed it to the ground. This operation of destruction apparently
took two days.
6. When the applicant returned to the village after these two days,
almost all of the 60 households in the village had been burnt and
destroyed. No habitable houses were left in the village. Also the
house in which the applicant and his family lived was destroyed.
7. The applicant has not received any explanation for the alleged
destruction of his home, his possessions and his village. Nor has he
been interviewed by the prosecutor or any other authority in connection
with this destruction or received any assistance whatsoever arising
from this military attack.
8. In response to the Government's allegations to the contrary, the
applicant submits that following the alleged events he has frequently
petitioned the authorities, including the appointed mayor, about his
losses. He has submitted oral and written petitions seeking
compensation. He has had a lawyer draw up a written petition for
submission to the authorities but they refused to accept his petition.
The applicant has not supplied the Commission with any documentary
evidence of these attempts to obtain compensation or redress.
9. According to the Government, the applicant's village has indeed
been abandoned by its inhabitants but as a result of the economic
hardship suffered through the activities of the PKK in the area rather
than as a consequence of any action on the part of the security forces.
Following the departure of the villagers the houses deteriorated and,
given that their roofs were made of mud, collapsed.
10. Following the communication of the present application to the
Turkish Government in May 1994, the public prosecutor of the Lice
district commenced a preliminary investigation into the incident.
11. On 21 February 1995 the public prosecutor issued a decision of
non-jurisdiction and the file was transferred to the District
Administrative Council under the special procedure for the prosecution
of public officials.
12. On 27 June 1996 the District Administrative Council decided
unanimously not to start any criminal proceedings against the security
forces for lack of evidence.
13. The applicant complained to the Commission that a raid was
carried out by the security forces on his village, in the course of
which his house and possessions were destroyed. He invoked various
Articles of the Convention - Article 3 (the prohibition on inhuman and
degrading treatment), Article 6 (the right of access to court),
Article 8 (the right to respect for family life and the home),
Article 13 (the right to effective national remedies for Convention
breaches), Article 14 (the prohibition on discrimination) and
Article 18 (the prohibition on using authorised Convention restrictions
for ulterior purposes), as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (the
right to property).
III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
14. The application was introduced on 9 February 1994 and registered
on 24 February 1994.
15. On 9 May 1994 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48
para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the
application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to
submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.
16. The Government's observations were submitted on 1 March 1995
after two extensions of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The
applicant replied on 15 May 1995 after an extension of the time-limit.
17. On 11 September 1995 the Commission declared the application
admissible. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was
sent to the parties on 14 September 1995. The parties were invited to
submit such further information or observations on the merits as they
wished. They were also invited to indicate the oral evidence they might
wish to put before Delegates of the Commission.
18. On 6 December 1995 the Government submitted additional
information to the Commission. On 19 December 1995 the Commission
received a letter from the applicant directly stating that the
statements contained in his application were incorrect and that he had
not authorised any persons to act on his behalf. On 26 March 1996 the
applicant's representatives commented on the submissions of 6 and
19 December 1995.
19. On 13 April 1996 the Commission decided to take oral evidence in
the applicant's case. It notified the parties by letter of
25 April 1996 requesting them, inter alia, to indicate which persons
they wished to be heard by the Delegates.
20. On 13 June 1996 the applicant submitted proposals for the taking
of oral evidence. The Government submitted information requested by the
Commission on 22 August 1996, 20 September 1996 and 24 January 1997.
21. A hearing in order to take oral evidence in the present case was
scheduled to be held from 10 to 14 March 1997 in Ankara.
22. By letter of 3 March 1997 the applicant's representatives
informed the Commission that they had been unable to establish contacts
with the applicant or any of the proposed witnesses.
23. On 6 March 1997, the Commission decided not to proceed with the
hearing and to seek the parties' views as to the future proceedings.
24. By letter of 29 March 1997, the Government requested the
Commission to strike the application out of its list of pending cases.
25. By letter of 4 April 1997, the applicant's representatives
requested the Commission to grant them a reasonable delay for
establishing contacts with the applicant in order to seek clarification
as to his wish to continue with his application.
26. On 12 April 1997 the Commission decided to grant the applicant's
representatives a delay until 14 July 1997 to establish contacts with
the applicant. When this time-limit expired, no reaction had been
received from the applicant's representatives.
27. On 15 September 1997 the Commission decided to strike the present
application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 30
para. 1 (a) of the Convention.
28. It adopted the present Report and decided to transmit it to the
Committee of Ministers and the Parties for information and to publish
it. The following members of the Commission were present when the
Report was adopted:
Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
I. BÉKÉS
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
P. LORENZEN
K. HERNDL
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
Mrs. M. HION
MM. R. NICOLINI
A. ARABADJIEV
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
29. The Commission notes that the applicant's representatives
apparently have been unable to establish any contacts with the
applicant.
30. The Commission finds that, in these circumstances, the applicant
has failed to keep his representatives informed of his whereabouts and
must, therefore, be considered to have lost interest in pursuing his
application to the Commission.
31. In the light of the above considerations, the Commission
concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application,
within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.
32. Moreover, as regards the issues raised in the present case, the
Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect
for Human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the
further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1
in fine of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE APPLICATION No. 23530/94 OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES;
ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;
DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers and
the Parties for information, and to publish it.
H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL
Secretary President
to the Commission of the Commission
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy