FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30979/10
Nurten GUNESEL and Others, and another application against Cyprus and Greece and 8 other applications against Cyprus
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 April 2013 as a Chamber composed of:
Ineta Ziemele, President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
George Nicolaou,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates set out in the Annex,
Having regard to the factual information provided by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The circumstances of the case
1. The applicants state that they are nationals of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. Their names, dates of birth and places of residence are set out in the Annex. They are represented before the Court by Ms Y. Renda, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.
2. The facts of the cases may be summarised as follows. The applicants are relatives of Turkish-Cypriot men who went missing in either December 1963 or April-May 1964 during incidents of mounting tension and violence in which Turkish Cypriots or Turkish-Cypriot villages were targeted.
3. These men were listed as missing persons, the information being given to the Cypriot authorities, the Red Cross and the United Nations.
4. The remains of the missing men have been found during exhumations carried out by the United Nations Committee for Missing Persons (“CMP”) in 2006‑10.
5. The Government have submitted that investigations had been commenced in all cases. The police had taken statements from relatives of the victims, taken steps to pursue investigation in the various localities and to trace police officers stationed there at the relevant time, to locate witnesses and to seek information from local inhabitants as to the transportation, murder and burial of the victims;
6. The applicants have submitted that it is not apparent that any progress has been made in the investigations and that they have not been given any copies of reports, witness statements or information gathered from various sources.
COMPLAINTS
7. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the respondent Government of Cyprus failed to carry out an effective investigation into the disappearance and killings of their relatives even though all necessary information had been provided to their authorities. They complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the continued and serious trauma and anguish which they suffer following the discovery of the remains and the lack of any serious efforts to hold to account those responsible for the deaths of their relatives. They further invoked Article 8 due to the impact of the disappearance on their family and private life, Article 13 due to lack of remedies and Article 14 due to the ethnic cleansing involved in the impugned events.
8. The applicants in two applications, nos. 30979/10 and 31015/10, invoked Article 2 in respect of Greece, stating that the then Government had provided the military training and armament to those acting against the Turkish Cypriot population and thus contributed to the disappearance and deaths of their relatives.
THE LAW
9. The applicants in two applications, nos. 30979/10 and 31015/10, complained in respect of Greece, invoking Article 2 and alleging that that they had contributed to the disappearance and deaths of their relatives.
The Court observes that Greece accepted the right of individual petition on a date subsequent to the events in which the applicant’s relatives disappeared, namely on 20 November 1985. Insofar therefore as the applicants complain against Greece concerning acts which may have allegedly contributed to disappearances in 1963 or 1964, the Court lacks temporal jurisdiction (see Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 70, ECHR 2006‑III; Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 134, ECHR 2009‑...).
10. Insofar as any of the applicants made complaint against the Republic of Cyprus about the events in 1963-1964, when their relatives went missing and were killed, in particular invoking Article 14 in respect to alleged ethnic cleansing, the Court notes that the Republic of Cyprus accepted the right of individual petition on 1 January 1989 subsequent to that time and such complaints would fall outside its temporal jurisdiction also.
This part of the application must therefore be rejected as incompatible ratione temporis pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
11. The applicants complained that there had been no effective investigation into the deaths of their relatives whose remains had been exhumed in the last few years. They invoked Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as relevant:
“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. ....”
12. The Court recalls that identical complaints were raised by applicants in the cases of Emin and Others v. Cyprus, (no. 59623/08 et al, decision of 3 April 2012). After examining the information and submissions of the parties, it concluded as follows:
“36. ...the Court finds that the investigations have been underway since October 2010 with no apparent concrete progress. This does not in itself disclose any lack of good faith or will on the part of the authorities. In the circumstances, it is premature to impugn the response of the authorities as ineffective. The Court would not underestimate the difficulties of finding witnesses who are still alive after this lapse of time and who are able to recall, and willing to give evidence, about past events. However, it would emphasise that the authorities must take reasonable steps to find the available evidence and pursue the practicable leads open to them at this time to uncover the perpetrators of any unlawful violence; that in due course an assessment will have to be made as to whether the evidence gathered is sufficient to justify a prosecution; and that the families should be informed of any key factual conclusions and procedural developments and any reasoned decisions in this regard. But it is too early for the Court as a supervisory international jurisdiction to reach any findings that the authorities’ actions are a mere sham or that there is bad faith, wilful footdragging and prevarication involved. Prolonged inactivity and silence by the authorities over a more significant period of time might eventually render such a conclusion possible but not yet. ...
38. It follows that at the present stage the applicants’ complaints under the procedural aspect of Article 2 are premature and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.”
13. The Court observes that there are no distinguishing features in the present applications which would lead it to differ from its reasoning above. It appears that investigations are underway in respect of all the cases and that steps have been taken towards gathering evidence. It is too early to draw any conclusions as to any alleged lack of efficacy.
14. It follows that at the present stage the applicants’ complaints under the procedural aspect of Article 2 are premature and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
15. Insofar as the applicants invoked other provisions of the Convention, the Court finds that these disclose no appearance of a violation of the Convention and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded as a whole pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosIneta Ziemele
RegistrarPresident
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
30979/10
13/05/2010
Nurten GUNESEL
22/01/1960
Mersin 10
Ayse GULERCAN
02/11/1961
Mersin 10
Gulten ALODALI
02/07/1958
Mersin 10
Ayten HAVALI
01/11/1956
Mersin 10
Yaprak RENDA
31015/10
10/05/2010
Mehmet Ali GOCER
01/11/1946
Mersin 10
Yaprak RENDA
42260/10
13/07/2010
Munise EROGLU
25/02/1944
Mersin 10
Yaprak RENDA
42276/10
14/07/2010
Kezban TASKINAY (HASAN)
11/09/1933
Mersin 10
Ilkay SHEFIK
07/01/1956
Kent
Emine OSMAN
09/09/1957
London
Yaprak RENDA
63947/10
12/10/2010
Sengul SEVKET ISMAIL
18/09/1953
Wildwood
Aygul RAMADAN
22/10/1954
Melbourne,
Aydin HAKSEVER (TACAN)
14/02/1956
Melbourne
Ahmet TACAN
14/02/1957
Melbourne
Halil SKORDO
02/01/1959
Larnaca
Alev TACAN
01/04/1960
Alaykoy
Huseyin TACAN
05/10/1961
Alaykoy
Yaprak RENDA
4312/11
06/12/2010
Hanife OZORMANCI
21/09/1939
Mersin
Sultan ASAFOGULLARI
06/08/1960
Mersin
Hasan OZORMANCI
09/04/1962
Mersin
Yaprak RENDA
38241/11
13/06/2011
Ibrahim Eray VAIZ
02/05/1963
London
Hasan VAIZ
25/09/1946
Mersin
Yaprak RENDA
39887/11
14/06/2011
Zahiye HANCERLI
26/09/1944
Mersin
Zerrin ALIBABA
11/07/1951
Lefkosa
Huseyin DENYALI
01/07/1955
Mersin
Yaprak RENDA
70345/11
03/10/2011
Mehmet Erbil TASER
21/04/1960
Gazi Magusa
Mustafa Ozbil TASER
24/08/1956
Gazi Magusa
Yaprak RENDA
70805/11
27/10/2011
Sevilay BERK
10/11/1945
Lefkosa
Aylan KOLGAZI
18/12/1946
Gazimagusa
Beriya Nurten GOKSAN
25/10/1949
Gazimagusa
Turgut KOLGAZI
18/04/1951
Gazimagusa
Tomris OZBERKKANLI
29/10/1962
London
Yaprak RENDA
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy