The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32
(art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),
Having regard to the report drawn up by the European
Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31)
of the Convention relating to the applications lodged on
21 July 1989 by the Metropolitan Chrysostomos and the
Archimandrite Papachrysostomou against Turkey
(Applications Nos. 15299/89 and 15300/89);
Whereas in their applications, declared admissible by the
Commission on 4 March 1991, the applicants complained of the
conditions of their arrest and detention in July 1989, and of the
proceedings brought against them;
Whereas Turkey has declared that its recognition of the
compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights
pursuant to Article 46 (art. 46) of the Convention extends only to
matters raised in respect of facts, including judgments based on
such facts, which have occurred subsequent to the date of deposit
of the declaration, that is after 22 January 1990;
Whereas on 26 August 1993 the Commission transmitted the said
report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of
three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1),
of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought
before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of
Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;
Whereas in its report adopted on 8 July 1993, the Commission
expressed, by twelve votes to one, the opinion that there had been
no violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention as regards the
first applicant, by twelve votes to one that there had been no
violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention as regards the
second applicant, by nine votes to four that there had been no
violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention as regards the
first applicant, by seven votes to six that there had been a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention as regards the
second applicant, by eight votes to five that there had been no
violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention
as regards the first applicant, by seven votes to six that there
had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the
Convention as regards the second applicant, by eight votes to five
that the applicants' detention after their arrest and the
proceedings against them were not in violation of the Convention
and by ten votes to three that there had been no violation of
Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention;
Whereas, at the 507th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held
on 3 February 1994, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the
opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in
accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in this case a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, as regards the
second applicant, that there had been no violation of Article 3
(art. 3) of the Convention as regards the first applicant, that
there had been no violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention
as regards the second applicant, that there had been no violation
of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention as regards the first
applicant, that there had been no violation of Article 5,
paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention as regards the first
applicant, that there had been no violation of Article 5,
paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention as regards the second
applicant, that the applicants' detention after their arrest and
the proceedings against them were not in violation of the
Convention and that there had been no violation of Article 13
(art. 13) of the Convention;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made
by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just
satisfaction to be awarded to the second applicant, proposals
supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated
8 July 1994;
Whereas, at the 517th meeting of the Deputies held on
20 September 1994, the Committee of Ministers decided, in
accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2 (art. 32-2), of the
Convention, that the Government of Turkey was to pay to the
Archimandrite Papachrysostomou as just satisfaction, within three
months, 10 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
75 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a
total sum of 85 000 French francs;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of
Turkey to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions
of 3 February 1994 and 20 September 1994, having regard to Turkey's
obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), of the
Convention to abide by them;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that
on 11 May 1995 the Government of Turkey paid the
Archimandrite Papachrysostomou the total sum of 85 000 French
francs as just satisfaction,
Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the
Government of Turkey, that it has exercised its functions under
Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention in this case;
Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the
Commission in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy