AFFAIRE TAVLI CONTRE LA TURQUIE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)225 [1] Tavl Electrolux împotriva Turciei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 11449/02, Hotărârea din 09/11/2006, definitivă la 09/02/2007) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede că el supraveghează executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "menționate mai jos " Convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârea definitivă, care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului în cauza de mai sus și încălcarea constatată (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012)894E care reamintește obligația de a se adresa Tribunalului, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (3) (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in integrum de măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare ; Am invitat guvernul statului pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligațiilor menționate anterior După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii judecătorești, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012)894E S DECLAMENTUL PE CARE își îndeplinește funcțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d'en . Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Kaz Caseta se referă la încălcarea dreptului la respect pentru privat și family life due to the impossibility for the applicant to prerevalil himself, before the national scurts in 1997, of DNA tests provoving that he was not the father of his formation wiffes child. His paternity had been established by legal presemption in 1982, when DNA tests were not available. Nevertheless, the national scurt rejected the applications request, mentaining that scientific progress could not be considered as offying a retrial (violation of Art. 8). B. Individual Measures: 1.Satisfacție echitabilă: The just satisfaction award has been paid. 2. Other individual Measures: Taking into account the Court.s judgment of 9 November 2006, the Aksaray Family Court considered the progress in Genetic and chemical analizis as a reason for retrial and on 2 October 2007 rendred a new judgement in applicant. In this judgement, the Aksaray Family Court méference to Art. 445 of Code on Civil Procedure which ia în considerare retrial of a case upon a EHR judgment and decided to accept the request for retrial acording to this provision. In its justification, Aksaray Court, in line with ECHRES judgment, considered the progress in genetic and chemical analysis as a reason for retrial and quashed her previous decision dated 01/6/1982 and ruled for the denial of the paternity as requested by the aplicant, relying on the DNA anallysis report prepared by Ankara Forensic Medicine Institution on 19/08/1998. On 23 July 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment, thus the applicant was get a judgement ruling denial of paternity. Accordingly, consecvences of the violation has been remedied. No other individual measure is necessary. C. General Measures: 1. Publication: This case has been translated into Turkish and publicityshed on the official website of the Ministry of Justice. It is access in Turkish, for free, on http://www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr/. 2. Disemination: This case has been disseminated to the relevant authorities, namely, the Human Rights Inquiry Committee of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, the Human Rights Presidency of the Prime Ministry of Republic of Turkey, the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation of Cassation, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice and the Directorate General of Security. 3. Other general measures: Since the case is of izolated natura, no other general measure has been required. The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consecvences for the aplicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar viols and that Turkey has thus compliment with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1, of the convention. [1] Adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 6 decembrie 2012 în cadrul celei de-a 1157-a reuniuni a delegaților miniștrilor. [2] Numai în limba engleză.

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)225

[1]

Tavlı contre Turquie

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

(Requête n

o

11449/02, arrêt du 09/11/2006, définitif le 09/02/2007)

Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «

la Convention

» et «

la Cour

»),

Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée (voir document

DH-DD(2012)894E

)

;

Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe

1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire

:

-

de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par

restitutio in integrum

;

et

-

de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;

Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnées

;

Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document

DH-DD(2012)894E

)

;

S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées

;

DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et

DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Kazım Tavlı v Turkey (11449/02)

Action Report

[2]

submitted by the Turkey on 10 October 2011

A. Case Description

The case concerns the violation of right to respect for private and family life due to the impossibility for the applicant to prevail himself, before the national courts in 1997, of DNA tests proving that he was not the father of his former wife’s child. His paternity had been established by legal presumption in 1982, when DNA tests were not available. Nevertheless, the national courts rejected the applicant’s request, maintaining that scientific progress could not be considered as “force majeure” justifying a retrial (violation of Art. 8).

B. Individual measures:

The just satisfaction award has been paid.

Taking into account the Court’s judgment of 9 November 2006, the Aksaray Family Court considered the progress in genetic and chemical analysis as a reason for retrial and on 2 October 2007 rendered a new judgement in favour of the applicant. In this judgement, the Aksaray Family Court made reference to Art. 445 of Code on Civil Procedure which envisage the retrial of a case upon a ECHR judgment and decided to accept the request for retrial according to this provision. In its justification, Aksaray Court, in line with ECHR’s judgment, considered the progress in genetic and chemical analysis as a reason for retrial and quashed her previous decision dated 01/6/1982 and ruled for the denial of the paternity as requested by the applicant, relying on the DNA analysis report prepared by Ankara Forensic Medicine Institution on 19/08/1998.

On 23 July 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment, thus the applicant was able to get a judgement ruling denial of paternity. Accordingly, consequences of the violation has been remedied. No other individual measure is necessary.

C. General measures:

This case has been translated into Turkish and published on the official web site of the Ministry of Justice. It is accessible in Turkish, for free, on http://www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr/.

This case has been disseminated to the relevant authorities, namely, the Human Rights Inquiry Committee of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, the Human Rights Presidency of the Prime Ministry of Republic of Turkey, the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice and the Directorate General of Security.

Since the case is of isolated nature, no other general measure has been required.

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article

46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

[1]

Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.

[2]

En anglais uniquement.