Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of European Court of Human Rights, July 27, 2004 (case CASE OF AGDAS v. TURKEY)
Linked as:
Extract
Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of European Court of Human Rights, July 27, 2004 (case CASE OF AGDAS v. TURKEY)
FOURTH SECTIONCASE OF AĞDAŞ v. TURKEY(Application no. 34592/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 July 2004FINAL27/10/2004This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ağdaş v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Sir Nicolas Bratza, President, Mr M. Pellonpää, Mr R. Maruste, Mr S. Pavlovschi, Mr L. Garlicki, Mr J. Borrego Borrego, judges, Mr F. Gölcüklü, ad hoc judge,and Mr M. O'Boyle, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 July 2004, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 34592/97) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Turkish national, Mr Kemal Ağdaş ("the applicant"), on 4 December 1996. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr M. Narin, Mr A. Yüksel, Mr E. Bolaç, Ms F. Bozuoğlu and Mr B. Aşçı, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government ("the Government") did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. 3. The applicant alleged that his brother İrfan Ağdaş was shot dead by police officers while walking in their neighbourhood and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation following the incident. He also complained that he had no access to court. He invoked Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention. 4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5. The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. Mr R. Türmen, the judge elected in respect of Turkey, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr F. Gölcüklü to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 6. By a decision of 19 June 2001, the Court declared the application admissible. 7. The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine). The parties replied in writing to each other's observations. 8. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Fourth Section (Rule 52 § 1).THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9. The facts of the case, in particular the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant's brother İrfan Ağdaş on 13 May 1996, are disputed by the parties. A. Events relating to the death of İrfan Ağdaş 1. Facts as presented by the applicant 10. On 13 May 1996, at about 7.00 p.m., the applicant's brother İrfan Ağdaş, aged 17, was walking through the Alibeyköy neighbourhood. Three plain-clothed police officers, who were patrolling the neighbourhood in an unmarked car, noticed the newspaper which İrfan was carrying in his hand and began to follow him. The newspaper was Zafer ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
