Despina CHARALAMBOUS and Others v Turkey - 646744/07 [2012] ECHR 651 (3 April 2012)

Despina CHARALAMBOUS and Others v Turkey - 646744/07 [2012] ECHR 651 (3 April 2012)

The Court found that the discovery and identification of the applicants' relatives' remains triggered a procedural obligation on Turkey to investigate the deaths under Article 2. However, as investigations had been launched and were ongoing, and there was no evidence at this stage of ineffectiveness, bad faith, or lack of expedition, the complaints were premature and manifestly ill-founded. There was also no evidence of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3, nor of any hindrance to the right of individual petition under Article 34.

Citation
[2012] ECHR 651
Parties
Applicants: Despina Charalambous and Others; Respondent: Turkey
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
03 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
Applications joined; remainder of applications declared inadmissible; complaints under Article 34 not pursued.
Legal Topics
Right to Life (article 2 Echr), Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (article 3 Echr), Right of Individual Petition (article 34 Echr), Procedural Obligations in Investigations, Missing Persons, State Responsibility
Human Rights Law International Law Right to Life (article 2 Echr) Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (article 3 Echr) Right of Individual Petition (article 34 Echr) Procedural Obligations in Investigations Missing Persons State Responsibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Despina Charalambous and Others

Applicants

Turkey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Turkey failed to carry out an effective investigation into the deaths of the applicants' relatives under Article 2 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the applicants suffered inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention due to the authorities' response after discovery of remains
  3. 3 Whether the respondent State hindered the right of individual petition under Article 34 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the discovery and identification of the applicants' relatives' remains triggered a procedural obligation on Turkey to investigate the deaths under Article 2. However, as investigations had been launched and were ongoing, and there was no evidence at this stage of ineffectiveness, bad faith, or lack of expedition, the complaints were premature and manifestly ill-founded. There was also no evidence of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3, nor of any hindrance to the right of individual petition under Article 34.

Court Disposition

Applications joined; remainder of applications declared inadmissible; complaints under Article 34 not pursued.

Orders

  • Applications joined
  • Remainder of applications declared inadmissible