Information Note on the Court’s case-law 26
January 2001
Dulaş v. Turkey - 25801/94
Judgment 30.1.2001 [Section I]
Article 3
Inhuman treatment
Destruction of home and property by security forces: violation
Facts: The applicant claimed that her home and possessions had been destroyed by the security forces, who had burned around fifty houses in her village, forcing the evacuation of the village.
The European Commission of Human Rights took evidence and found the evidence of the applicant and other villagers to be convincing, whereas it considered the evidence given by members of the security forces to be unreliable. It found it established that the applicant's property had been burned by the security forces.
Law: The Court accepted the facts as established by the Commission.
Government's preliminary objection (non-exhaustion) – Despite the extent of the problem of village destruction, there appeared in previous cases to be no example of compensation being awarded or of prosecutions being brought. There had consistently been a general reluctance on the part of the authorities to admit that such practices by members of the security forces had occurred. It has thus not been demonstrated with sufficient certainty that effective and accessible remedies existed. In the circumstances, it is understandable that the applicant considered it pointless to attempt to secure satisfaction through national legal channels. The preliminary objection must therefore be dismissed.
Article 3 – The applicant was over 70 at the time of the events and her home and property were destroyed in front of her eyes, depriving her of means of shelter and support and obliging her to leave the community where she had lived all her life. Having regard to the circumstances in which her home and possessions were destroyed and her personal circumstances, she must have been caused suffering of sufficient severity for the acts to be categorised as inhuman treatment.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – There can be no doubt that the acts of the security forces constituted particularly grave and unjustified interferences with the applicant's rights under these provisions.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 13 – It has not been established with sufficient certainty that the remedies referred to by the Government provided in the circumstances of the case any effective prospect of obtaining redress. While the applicant did not approach any domestic authority with her complaints, it appears that she was summoned by the public prosecutor following communication of her application to the Government. However, it is not apparent that he took any investigative step before issuing a decision of lack of jurisdiction and referring the matter to the Administrative Council, which the Court has already found not to be independent. There was therefore no thorough or effective investigation.
Conclusion: violation (6 votes to 1).
Article 18 – The Court did not find it necessary to examine this complaint separately.
Conclusion: not necessary to examine (unanimously).
The Court did not find it necessary to determine whether the failings identified were part of a practice adopted by the authorities.
Former Article 25 (Article 34) – The Court was not satisfied that the interview with the public prosecutor related solely to the latter's duty to collect information about the applicant's complaints for the purpose of his own investigation. It also involved verifying the authenticity of the application and whether the applicant wanted to continue it and the applicant not unreasonably must have felt intimidated by the interview and felt under pressure to withdraw her application. This constituted undue interference.
Conclusion: failure to comply with obligations (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant £12,600 (GBP) in respect of pecuniary damage and £10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy