Přehled
Rozhodnutí
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 34542/03
by Kazel YILDIZ and Others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr B.M. Zupančič, President,
Mr J. Hedigan,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr C. Bîrsan,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Gyulumyan,
Mr David Thór Björgvinsson, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 December 2000,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mrs Kazel Yıldız, Mr Sedat Yıldız, Mr Polat Yıldız and Mr Ali Yıldız, are Turkish nationals and live in Elazığ. They are represented before the Court by Mr C. Zülfikar, Mr K. Çetin and Mr M. Gündoğdu, lawyers practising in Elazığ.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicants’ version of the facts
a) Circumstances surrounding the death of Arslan Yıldız
On 13 October 1994 Arslan Yıldız, the first applicant’s husband and the brother of Polat Yıldız and Ali Yıldız, was taken into custody by gendarme officers.
On 5 November 1994 Arslan Yıldız’s corpse was found in the vicinity of the neighbouring Bilekli village along with the corpse of Müslüm Kavut, an inhabitant of Bilekli. Both of the bodies bore firearm injuries.
On an unspecified date, Kazel Yıldız and Ali Hıdır Yıldız, son of Kazel Yıldız, lodged petitions with the Hozat public prosecutor requesting an investigation into the death of Arslan Yıldız.
On 4 January 1995 the Hozat public prosecutor issued a decision of non jurisdiction ratione loci and transferred the investigation file to the Ovacık Public Prosecutor who forwarded it to the Military Prosecutor’s office in Ankara.
On 29 September 1997 the Military Prosecutor attached to the Gendarmerie Headquarters in Ankara also issued a decision of non‑jurisdiction ratione materiae. The case-file was then sent to the Public Prosecutor’s office attached to the Malatya State Security Court.
On 17 April 2000 Kazel Yıldız filed a petition with the public prosecutor’s office in Hozat and requested information concerning the investigation into her husband’s death. She did not receive any response to her petition.
On 31 July 2000 Kazel Yıldız lodged a further petition with the Ministry of the Interior and requested compensation for the damage she had suffered on account of her husband’s death. She also requested that an investigation be initiated into Arslan Yıldız’s death.
In a letter of 16 September 2002 the Malatya Public Prosecutor at the State Security Court asked the Hozat Public Prosecutor to provide information every three months on the progress made in the investigation concerning the death of Arslan Yıldız.
b) Circumstances surrounding the destruction of the applicants’ property and their inability to return to their village
Until October 1994 the applicants all lived in Karaoğlan, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where they owned houses, livestock and land.
In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated the Karaoğlan village and destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants then moved to Elazığ where they currently live.
On 16 August 1996 the mayors of some villages of the Ovacık district, including the mayor of Karaoğlan, Düzgün Yıldız, petitioned the Governor’s office in Tunceli, the Ministry of Construction and Settlement, the Governor’s office in the state of emergency region, the Refah Partisi (Welfare Party) Presidency, the Prime Minister’s office and the Presidency of the Parliament on behalf of the inhabitants of the Ovacık villages. They requested the aforementioned authorities to allow the inhabitants to return to their villages. They also requested aid for food and compensation for the damage they had suffered.
On 2 February 1999 the mayors of the villages of Ovacık lodged further petitions with the offices of the President, Prime Minister and District Governor and requested permission on behalf of the villagers to return to their villages.
They received no response to their petitions.
On unspecified dates, the applicants lodged further petitions with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to their village.
On 10 May 2000 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to the applicants:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
2. The Government’s version of the facts
a) Concerning the death of Arslan Yıldız
Arslan Yıldız disappeared for an unknown reason around 10-13 October 1994.
On 26 October 1994 Ali Hıdır Yıldız applied to the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office and claimed that his brother had been taken away by soldiers who had been carrying out operations in the vicinity of their village. He stated that they could not obtain any information from the military authorities about the whereabouts of his brother and that they were worried about his life. He therefore asked for an investigation to be carried out into the disappearance of his brother.
On 31 October 1994 Ali Hıdır Yıldız filed a petition with the Tunceli Chief Public Prosecutor’s office complaining that his brother Arslan Yıldız and his son Ulaş Yıldız had been taken away twenty days ago in the course of an operation carried out by the security forces. He therefore asked for an investigation to be conducted in order to find out the whereabouts of his relatives.
On 5 November 1994 Arslan Yıldız’s body was found in the vicinity of the neighbouring village. A post-mortem examination was carried out on the body of the deceased under the supervision of the Hozat Public prosecutor and in the presence of Ali Hıdır Yıldız.
On 21 November 1994 Ali Hıdır Yıldız was questioned by Public Prosecutor no. 33341 in relation to the death of his brother. Mr Yıldız alleged that his brother had been found dead in a field in Bilekli village subsequent to his removal from his village by the security forces. He asked the Public Prosecutor to bring those responsible for the death of his brother to justice.
On 22 November 1994 prosecuting authorities took statements from Ulaş Yıldız and Kazel Yıldız who are respectively the son and wife of the deceased. Ulaş Yıldız stated that security forces conducting operations in Karaoğlan village had taken him with them to a hamlet attached to his village. In the hamlet he had met Müslüm Kavut who was the then muhtar (mayor) of Bilekli village. The soldiers had brought his father, Arslan Yıldız, to the hamlet an hour after their arrival. Ulaş Yıldız had then been separated from his father and the muhtar and had been released in Ağırbaşlı village. Twenty-five days after this incident his father and the muhtar had been found dead in Bilekli village.
Kazel Yıldız stated that her husband and son had been taken away by soldiers on 13 October 1994 and that while her son had been released next day, her husband had been found dead along with Müslüm Kavut in Bilekli village. She claimed that her husband and Müslüm Kavut had been killed by the soldiers.
On 22 November 1994 prosecuting authorities heard evidence from Düzgün Yıldız. Mr Yıldız, who was the muhtar of Karaoğlan village at the relevant time, stated that he had seen Arslan Yıldız been taken away by soldiers. He had then inquired into the reason for detention of Arslan Yıldız at the Gendarmerie Station and had been told by the authorities that he would guide the soldiers coming from outside the region. However, the corpses of Arslan Yıldız and Müslüm Kavut had been found by Efo Kavut.
Meanwhile, prosecuting authorities took statements from Efo Kavut who is the father of Müslüm Kavut. He alleged that his son and Mehmet Yıldız had been taken away and killed by soldiers.
On 1 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction ratione loci and sent the investigation file to the Hozat Public Prosecutor’s office.
On 7 December 1994 the Tunceli Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction ratione loci and sent the investigation file to the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction ratione loci and sent the investigation file to the Hozat Public Prosecutor’s office.
On 30 December 1994 statements were taken from Ahmet Ördek, who is the uncle of Müslüm Kavut. He stated that some of the villagers had described to him the area where the bodies had been found.
On 2 January 1995 Gendarmerie authorities took statements from Efo Kavut, the father of Müslüm Kavut whose corpse was found together with Arslan Yıldız. Efo Kavut stated that he did not know the killer(s) of his son and described the area where he found the bodies of the deceased persons.
On 4 January 1995 the Hozat Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non‑jurisdiction ratione loci and sent the investigation file to the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office.
On 6 June 1996 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non‑jurisdiction ratione materiae and sent the case-file to the Military Prosecutor’s office at the Headquarters of Elazığ 8th Army Corps (Elazığ 8. Kolordu Komutanlığı Askeri Savcılığı).
On 13 June 1995 Public Prosecutor no. 32453 attached to the Malatya Chief Public Prosecutor’s office took statements from Efo Kavut. The latter stated that his son Müslüm Kavut, who was the muhtar of Karaoğlan village, had been taken away by the soldiers. When he inquired into the arrest of his son, the authorities at the Gendarmerie Station had told him that there was an investigation in relation to his son. On 24 October 1994 Efo Kavut found the bodies of his son and Arslan Yıldız some 500 metres away from the Gendarmerie Station. Efo Kavut asked the Public Prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings against the soldiers that were responsible for the killing of his son.
On 28 February 1996 Public Prosecutor no. 30940 took statements from Murat Ceviz, who worked as a non-commissioned officer at the Karaoğlan Gendarmerie Station between 1993 and 1995, in relation to the killing of Arslan Yıldız. Mr Ceviz stated that neither Arslan Yıldız nor Müslüm Kavut had been detained by their gendarmerie troops. However, he noted that these two persons had accompanied a troop as guides in the course of their operations in the region. He did not know the name or commanding officer of the troop in question. He further claimed that he had had no information concerning the death of these two persons.
On 22 April 1996 Public Prosecutor no. 24380 questioned Abdulvahip Sarı, who worked as an officer at the Karaoğlan Gendarmerie at the relevant time. Mr Sarı stated that Müslüm Kavut and Arslan Yıldız had not been detained at the Karaoğlan Gendarmerie Station. He had no information concerning the arrest and detention of these persons or the troops operating in the region.
On 18 June 1996 the Military Prosecutor attached to the Headquarters of Elazığ 8th Army Corps issued a decision of non-jurisdiction ratione loci and sent the investigation file to the Military Prosecutor’s office at the Headquarters of Ankara 4th Army Corps.
In a letter of 23 October 1996 the Deputy Military Prosecutor at the Headquarters of Ankara 4th Army Corps asked the Bolu 2nd Brigade Command to report the names of the troops which had conducted operations in the region at the relevant time. He also requested that the names of persons, if any, who had assisted the troops as guides be reported to him. He further asked whether any complaint had been lodged concerning the killing of the persons and, if so, whether any investigation had been carried out into such allegations.
On 6 March 1997 Military Public Prosecutor in Malatya took statements from Efo Kavut in relation to the death of his son and Arslan Yıldız. Mr Kavut reiterated his allegations that his son could have been killed by the soldiers who had conducted operations in the region.
On 2 May 1997 the Military Public prosecutor also took statements from Kazel Yıldız, the wife of Arslan Yıldız. She alleged that her husband had been taken away by soldiers and that therefore he must have been killed by them. She however stated that she did not know the names or ranks of the soldiers.
Finally, on 29 September 1997, the Military Public Prosecutor attached to the Gendarmerie Headquarters in Ankara issued a decision of non‑jurisdiction ratione materiae considering that the offence in question fell within the jurisdiction of the state security courts which were competent in terrorist or organised crimes. The Military Public Prosecutor noted that, despite the allegations that Arslan Yıldız could have been taken away or killed by the security forces conducting operations in the region, there was no eye-witness and that the overall evidence given by the witnesses consisted of hearsay. He therefore considered that it was impossible to hold the security forces responsible for the killing of Arslan Yıldız on the basis of hearsay evidence. In light of the evidence contained in the investigation file, the Military Public Prosecutor concluded that Arslan Yıldız had been killed by members of the terrorist organisations. A copy of the investigation file was then sent to the Chief Public Prosecutors’ offices at the Malatya and Diyarbakır State Security Courts.
In a report dated 13 January 2005 the Malatya Public Prosecutor stated that the investigation into the death of Arslan Yıldız was still pending in order to identify the culprits.
b) Concerning the alleged destruction of the applicants’ property and their inability to return to their village
The official records indicated that the inhabitants of the villages of Ovacık had evacuated their places of living on account of intense terrorist activities in the region and threats issued by the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) terrorist organisation against the villagers. The security forces had not destroyed any property or forced the applicants to leave their village. Furthermore, the applicants had not filed any complaint with the authorities concerning the alleged destruction of their property and their forced eviction from Karaoğlan. Thus no investigation had been carried out into these allegations which had only been submitted to the European Court.
Currently there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages. Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and renewing their activities in their villages.
On 14 July 2004 the Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism was passed by the Grand National Assembly and entered into force on 27 July 2004 (“Compensation Law”). That Law provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the Convention grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their villages.
In that connection Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions were set up in seventy-six provinces. Persons who had suffered damage as a result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation commission claiming compensation.
The number of persons applying to these commissions had already attained approximately 187,000. A further 800 persons, whose applications were pending before the Court, had also applied to the compensation commissions. Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained.
B. Relevant domestic law
A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the Court’s decision of Aydın İçyer v. Turkey (no. 18888/02, §§ 44-54, 12 January 2006) and in its judgments of Doğan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 8803‑8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, §§ 31-35, ECHR 2004-VI) and İpek v. Turkey (no. 25760/94, §§ 96-103, ECHR 2004‑II (extracts)).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants alleged a violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The applicants maintained that the arrest and subsequent killing of Arslan Yıldız by the State security forces had violated Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention.
They submitted under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had been deprived of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as the security forces had destroyed their property and had forced them to leave their village. They further complained under the same heading that they had been prevented from returning to their villages and using their possessions.
The applicants submitted under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment since they had been forced to leave their village by the security forces. They alleged that they had suffered financial difficulties in sustaining their families.
The applicants further contended under Article 5 of the Convention that they had been deprived of their liberty and security due to the conduct of the security forces.
They alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that they had been denied access to court to request compensation for the destruction of their property and to return to their village.
The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that their right to respect for their family life and home had also been violated as their property had been destroyed and they had been forcibly displaced from their village and had been prevented from returning.
They submitted under Article 13 of the Convention that they had had no effective remedy for their various Convention grievances.
The applicants complained under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with the above‑mentioned Articles, that they had been subjected to discrimination on account of their ethnic identity.
THE LAW
A. As regards the death of the applicants’ relative, Arslan Yıldız
The applicants maintained that the arrest and subsequent killing of Arslan Yıldız by the State security forces had violated Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
Article 2 of the Convention
“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. ...”
Article 5 of the Convention
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so. ...”
1. The parties’ submissions
a) The applicants
The applicants contended that on 13 October 1994 Arslan Yıldız had been taken away by soldiers from the Ovacık Karaoğlan Gendarmerie Station and that on 5 November 1994 his corpse had been found in the vicinity of Bilekli village. The authorities had failed to carry out any meaningful and effective investigation into their allegations that the killing of their relative had been committed by the soldiers who had conducted operations in the region. In their opinion, there was an administrative practice of failure to provide an effective remedy for abuses carried out by the security forces and an administrative practice of extra-judicial killings and disappearances. The killing of Arslan Yıldız was part of this administrative practice which had existed in the state-of-emergency region at the relevant time. The domestic remedies had proved to be ineffective as demonstrated by the defective investigation in question which had already lasted twelve years. Given that since 1997 the European Court had begun admitting applications submitted from the state-of-emergency region of Turkey without the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, this application had been lodged despite the proceedings pending in domestic law.
b) The Government
The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust all domestic remedies given that they had not availed themselves of the administrative and civil remedies available in domestic law. They claimed, in the alternative, that the applicants had not observed the six-month rule either. The application had been lodged more than six years after the death of Arslan Yıldız. In view of the applicants’ allegations that there were no effective remedies in domestic law since 1997 and that they had submitted their application on 7 December 2000, this application should be considered to have been lodged outside the six months’ time-limit.
As regards the substance of the applicants’ allegations, the Government contended that Arslan Yıldız had never been arrested or detained by gendarme officers. They further denied that Mr Yıldız had accompanied the soldiers as a guide during the military operations in the region. In their opinion, the killing of Arslan Yıldız could only have been committed by terrorists. However, despite the authorities’ efforts, the perpetrators of the crime could not be identified. The investigation was still pending.
2. The Court’s assessment
The Court considers that it is not required to decide whether the applicants can be considered to have exhausted domestic remedies or whether there existed such special circumstances in the present case which would dispense the applicants from the obligation to pursue further remedies in domestic law. Even if they are correct in their assertion that they had no effective remedies, this does not relieve them of the obligation to comply with the six-month rule.
The Court recalls in the first place that the purpose of the six-month rule is to promote security of law and to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time. Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; and Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III).
The Court further recalls that if no remedies are available or if they are judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit in principle runs from the date of the act complained of (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62566/00, 10 January 2002).
However, special considerations could apply in exceptional cases where an applicant avails himself or relies on an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective; in such a case it is appropriate to take as the start of the six-month period the date when he first became aware or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001; Bulut and Yavuz, cited above).
In this connection, in a number of cases concerning on-going investigations into the deaths of the applicants’ relatives the Court examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy (see Şükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Bulut and Yavuz, cited above; Bayram and Yıldırım, cited above; Kıniş v. Turkey (dec.), no. 13635/04, 28 June 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005). Although the Court refrained from indicating a specific period for establishing when an investigation has become ineffective for the purposes of assessing when the six-month period runs from, the determination of such period by the Court depended on the circumstances of each case and other factors such as the diligence and interest displayed by the applicants as well as the adequacy of the investigation in question.
In the instant case, the Court observes that since the first applicant is the wife and the remaining three applicants are the sons of the deceased, they may be expected to display due diligence and to take the requisite initiative in informing themselves about the progress made in the investigation. In this connection, the Court notes that the applicants petitioned a number of administrative and judicial authorities following the disappearance and subsequent death of Arslan Yıldız in 1994, alleging that he had been taken away and killed by the security forces. Between 21 November 1994 and 2 May 1997 the prosecuting authorities took a number of statements from the applicants, potential witnesses and military authorities inquiring into whether Arslan Yıldız had indeed been arrested and detained and subsequently killed by the security forces. The investigation into the alleged involvement of the security forces in the killing of Arslan Yıldız came to an end by the Military Public Prosecutor’s decision of 29 September 1997, where he concluded that Mr Yıldız had not been killed by the security forces but by terrorists. Accordingly, from 29 September 1997 onwards the official investigation did not address the eventual responsibility of the security forces.
As noted earlier, although the applicants took the preliminary steps, they did not pursue the domestic remedies referred to by the Government in respect of their grievances because they considered that those remedies were ineffective. Even assuming that there were no effective remedies in the present case, both the applicants and their representative must be considered to have been aware of this situation not later than on 29 September 1997, the date on which the prosecuting authorities made it clear that they would not continue the criminal proceedings against the security forces. Indeed, referring to the Court’s admissibility decisions in similar cases brought from the state-of-emergency region of Turkey, the applicants had already claimed that the domestic remedies were ineffective since 1997. On that account, the application should have been introduced not later than six months after 29 September 1997. Since this application was introduced on 7 December 2000, it is clear that it was not submitted to the Court within the six months’ time-limit.
Furthermore, the applicants have failed to substantiate the existence of specific circumstances which might have prevented them from observing the time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court finds, therefore, that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and is inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
B. As regards the alleged destruction of the applicants’ property and their inability to return to their village
1. Complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The applicants complained that their forcible displacement and destruction of their property as well as the refusal of the authorities to allow them to return to their homes and land had given rise to breaches of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
Article 3 of the Convention
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 8 of the Convention
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life [and] his home...
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The Government raised an objection to the Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as they had not availed themselves of the new remedy offered by the Compensation Law of 27 July 2004. In that connection they claimed that the mechanism which they had set up subsequent to the Doğan and Others judgment of 29 June 2004 (nos. 8803‑8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, §§ 31-35, ECHR 2004-...) was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicants’ complaints and offered a reasonable prospect of success.
The applicants disputed the Government’s submissions and alleged that the new remedy introduced by the compensation law could not be regarded as effective.
The Court observes that under the compensation law of 27 July 2004 it is open to persons, such as the applicants in the present case whose applications are pending before the Court, to lodge until 3 January 2007 an application with the compensations commissions in order to claim compensation for the damage they had sustained as a result of their displacement, destruction of property and inability to gain access to their possessions in their villages in south-east Turkey.
The Court has already examined that remedy and found it effective in respect of complaints about the alleged forced displacement and denial of access to possessions in the villages in south-east Turkey. In particular, it considered that the new remedy was accessible and provided reasonable prospects of success (see Aydın İçyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, §§ 73‑87, 12 January 2006).
In the light of the above, the Court considers that there are no exceptional circumstances capable of exempting the applicants from the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies.
It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
2. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention
The applicants complained that there was no effective domestic remedy capable of providing redress for their Convention grievances. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Government disputed the above allegations, arguing that there were effective domestic remedies of which the applicants had failed to avail themselves.
The Court has already found that the Compensation Law does provide the applicants with an effective remedy in respect of their complaint concerning the alleged forced displacement, destruction of property and denial of access to their property. That finding is valid in the context of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
3. Complaints under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention
The applicants further complained that their rights guaranteed under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention had been breached on account of the refusal of the authorities to allow them to gain access to their possessions.
The Government did not address these issues beyond denying the factual basis of the substantive complaints.
The Court notes that in its Doğan and Others v. Turkey pilot judgment it has examined complaints similar to those raised by the applicants in the instant case and has found them unsubstantiated. It finds no particular circumstances in the present case which would require it to depart from its findings in the aforementioned case.
It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President