Planet Iran

April 13, 2010

Based on a ruling today, by the European Court of Human Rights, the government of Turkey has been charged to pay restitution amounting anywhere between 900,000 to 26 million Euros for abuse of one Tunisian and eleven Iranian refugees. Currently six of these individuals remain in Turkey but are facing the danger of expulsion to their countries of origin; the other five now live in Sweden.

The twelve refugees had lodged complaints of abuse and inhumane treatment at the hands of Turkish guards in refugee camps, with the Strasbourg based European Court of Human Rights .

As well as the financial restitution, the court ruled that the expulsion of the six refugees remaining in Turkey to their homeland would be considered a violation of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The judges presiding over the case found that the extradition of said refugees would lead to torture in their own countries.

So far the government of Turkey which has recently strengthened its ties with the Iranian regime, has not reacted. In recent weeks several have described the conditions under which Iranian dissidents in Turkey are forced to live.

Below is a .

308

13.04.2010

Press release issued by the Registrar

Chamber judgments concerning

Portugal, Serbia and Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).

One repetitive case and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.

Krivosej v. Serbia (application no. 42559/08)

The applicant, Ana Krivošej, is a Serbian national of Russian origin who was born in 1969 and lives in Niš (Serbia). The case concerned Ms Krivošej’s complaint about the domestic courts’ non-enforcement of access rights to her son, born in 1994, and who had been put into the custody of his father in 2002. She relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

Violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction: 7,300 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)

Charahili v. Turkey (no. 46605/07)

Keshmiri v. Turkey (no. 36370/08)

Ranjbar and Others v. Turkey (no. 37040/07)

Tehrani and Others v. Turkey (nos. 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08)

The applicants are one Tunisian, Malek Charahili, currently held in the K?rklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre in Turkey, and ten Iranian nationals: Mansour Keshmiri, Mohammad Javad Tehrani and Parviz Norouzi, also detained in the K?rklareli Centre; Nader Kazempour Marand and Parviz Ranjbar Shorehdel, currently settled in K?rklareli on the basis of a temporary residence permit; and, Alireza Ranjbar, Pejman Piran, Abolfazl Ajorlu, Seyid Ali Alemzadeh and Mostaba Naderani Vatanpur, currently living in Sweden. Recognised as refugees by the UNHCR (the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), they all left their country of origin and entered Turkey illegally. Their four cases concerned their possible deportation to Tunisia (the first case), Iran or Iraq (the other three cases). They alleged that, as members of illegal organisations (Ennahda in the first case, and former members of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation in the second and fourth cases), they would be at real risk of death or ill-treatment if deported. They relied in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. In all the cases but one (Keshmiri), the applicants also made various complaints under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) about the unlawfulness of their detention pending deportation. The applicants in the cases of Charahili and Tehrani and Others further complained under Article 3 about the conditions of their detention in a police station and in some of the detention centres where they had been held awaiting deportation.

(1st, 2nd and 4th cases) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) (if expulsion order enforced)

(1st and 4th cases) Violation of Article 3 (treatment)

(2nd and 4th cases) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 (treatment)

(1st and 3rd cases) Violation of Article 5 § 1

(4th case) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4

In addition, the Court held that the State had to secure the release of Mohammad Javad Tehrani and Parviz Norouzi and should not re-detain Nader Kazempour Marand and Parviz Ranjbar Shorehdel

Just satisfaction: (eight applicants) sums ranging from EUR 9,000 to EUR 26,000 (non-pecuniary damage); and (three applications – each) EUR 3,500 (less the EUR 850 granted by way of legal aid), and (one application – jointly) EUR 3,500 (costs and expenses).

Repetitive case

The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.

Ça?lar v. Turkey (no. 11192/05)*

In this case the applicant complained that he was deprived of his property, designated as forest area, without compensation. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Length-of-proceedings case

Ferreira Alves v. Portugal (No. 6) (nos. 46436/06 and 55676/08)*

In this case, the applicant complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) about the excessive length of civil proceedings.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

***

These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ().

Press contacts

Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70)
Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)
Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)
Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

¹ Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.

² In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.