FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 34592/97 
by Kemal AĞDAŞ 
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 June 2001 as a Chamber composed of

Mrs E. Palm, President
 Mr L. Ferrari Bravo
 Mr Gaukur Jörundsson
 Mr B. Zupančič
 Mr T. Panţîru
 Mr R. Maruste, judges
 Mr F. Gölcüklü, ad hoc judge,

and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 December 1996 and registered on 24 January 1997,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having regard to the Commission’s partial decision of 18 May 1998,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Turkish national, born in 1960 and living in Istanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr Metin Narin, Mr Ahmet Düzgün, Mr Efkan Bolaů, Ms Filiz Bozoğlu and Mr Behiç Aşçı lawyers practising in Istanbul. The applicant is the brother of the deceased İrfan Ağdaş who was killed by police officers in Istanbul.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

Events of 13 May 1996

On 13 May 1996, at about 7 p.m., while the applicant’s brother İrfan Ağdaş, a 17 year-old pupil, was walking through Alibeyköy neighbourhood three police officer started to pursue him by car when they saw that he was holding a newspaper in his hand called Kurtuluş (Salvation). The newspaper is known for its socialist point of view. İrfan started to run away as two plain-clothed police officers got out of the car and opened fire.

According to the Government the police officers opened fire when İrfan started to shoot at them.

The applicant alleges that the police officers shot the applicant’s brother in the back and kicked him as he was lying on the street. A woman, A. B. tried to help İrfan. However, the police officers pushed her aside and put İrfan into the back seat of the police car. One of the police officers sat on him and they drew away. After a while they left İrfan’s body near the Eyüp SSK Hospital. Many people witnessed these events.

On 14 May 1996 the police arrested many people who attended İrfan’s funeral which took place under strict police control.

The proceedings concerning the death of the applicant’s brother

In a police report dated 13 May 1996 it is recorded that ten MP-5 type empty cartridges of 9 mm calibre, four Parabellum type empty cartridges of 9 mm calibre and three Roger type empty cartridges of 9 mm calibre were found in the crime scene.

On 13 May 1996 police officers submitted the following items to the Şehit Atıf Ödül Police Station: a Browning type of gun of 9 mm calibre, six cartridges of 9 mm calibre, one cartridge clip, seventeen empty cartridges of 9 mm calibre and twenty-seven copies of newspapers called Zafer Yolunda Kurtuluş (Salvation in the Path of Glory).

A preliminary autopsy on İrfan Ağdaş was carried out on 13 May 1996. In the autopsy report, two bullet entry wounds and two bullet exit wounds were recorded. It was concluded that final autopsy should be carried out by the Forensic Medicine Institute.

On 13 May 1996 two eyewitnesses gave statements at the Human Rights Association Branch in Istanbul.

S.M. stated as follows:

“At around 7 p.m. I saw a young man walking in front of my house. [At that moment I saw] a white Toros car approaching very quickly from the top end of the street. It had the number plate 34 FT 322. There were three plain-clothed men in the car. One of them got out of the car and fired a few shots from a 4 or 5 meters distant.  I assume that the young man was hurt on the leg. He started to run down the street. One of the men ran after him and continued shooting with a gun and an automatic weapon. At that moment there were many children on the street. They ran approximately 150 or 200 meters. Afterwards I saw the young man falling on the ground. He was shot in the back. The three men kicked him as he was lying on the ground. They put him in the car and sat on him.”

A.B. stated as follows:

“I was walking on the street with my grand child. ... I saw a young man lying on the street. He was bleeding. There was blood on his chest and on his back. When I saw two men kicking him on the head I kneeled down [in order to protect him]. However, they pushed me away. They put him in the car and drew away.”

On 14 May 1996 the applicant’s other brother C.A. lodged a complaint with the office of the Eyüp public prosecutor. He requested that an on sight examination be conducted into his brother’s death and that the eyewitnesses be heard by the public prosecutor.

An autopsy was carried out at the Forensic Medicine Institute on 14 May 1996. It was concluded that the applicant’s brother died of bullet wounds. It was decided that the final autopsy report would be drafted at a later stage.

In a ballistic report of the Criminal Police Laboratory of Istanbul dated 14 May 1996, it is recorded that a Browning type of gun of 9 mm calibre, six cartridges of 9 mm, one cartridge clip and seventeen empty cartridges of 9 mm calibre were submitted for a ballistics examination in relation to the death of İrfan Ağdaş. As to the findings of the examination the report states that seven of the bullets examined have been fired from a Browning type of gun and that ten of the bullets have been fired from the weapons belonging to the police forces.

In a letter dated 16 May 1996 and addressed to the Prime Minister, Sabri Ergül, the MP for İzmir, pointed out that a meaningful examination should be conducted by the authorities into the death of İrfan Ağdaş. Mr Ergül stated that the death of İrfan Ağdaş cast some doubts whether or not the use of force inflicted by the police officers was necessary.

On 16 May 1996 the Eyüp public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction (görevsizlik kararı). The prosecutor stated that İrfan Ağdaş had opened fire on the police officers when they requested to see his identity card. The police officers returned fire in order to arrest him but, as a result of their negligent shooting, İrfan Ağdaş was killed. The prosecutor decided to transfer the case file to the office of the Eyüp District Governor pursuant to the provisions of Law on Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Hakkında Kanun) since the alleged crime was committed while the police officers were performing their duty.

On 23 May 1996 the applicant’s other brother C.A. lodged an objection with the Eyüp Assize Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi) against the Eyüp public prosecutor’s decision of 16 May 1996. He stated that the public prosecutor had decided to transfer the case file to the office of the Eyüp District Governor without conducting a meaningful investigation.

On 23 May 1996 C.A. lodged another complaint with the Eyüp Magistrate’s Court (Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi). He requested that an on sight examination be conducted into his brother’s death and that the eyewitnesses be heard by the public prosecutor.

On 27 May 1996 the Eyüp Magistrate’s Court rejected C.A.’s complaint of 23 May 1996 on the grounds that the administrative and judicial authorities had already launched an investigation into the matter.

On 3 June 1996 C.A. lodged an objection with the Eyüp Assize Court against the Eyüp Magistrate’s Court’s decision of 27 May 1996 on the ground that the Magistrates were entitled to conduct an ex officio investigation in urgent matters pursuant to Article 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On 4 June 1996 the Eyüp Assize Court rejected this objection.

In an autopsy report dated 5 July 1996 it was concluded, with reference to the results of the examination conducted on 14 May 1996, that İrfan Ağdaş had died of bullet wounds. One bullet entry wound from the left elbow, one bullet exit wound from the left arm, one bullet entry wound from the left nipple and one bullet exit wound from the back were recorded on the body. However, no bullets could be removed from the body. The bullet wounds suggested that İrfan Ağdaş was killed as a result of long distance shooting. The chemical examination indicated that neither alcohol nor any other narcotic substances had been observed in his blood.  Furthermore, no nitrate or nitrate ion was found on the skin samples taken from İrfan Ağdaş’ hands.

On 17 August 1996 A.B. and two unidentified persons gave statements to the applicant’s representative. These persons stated that they had heard shootings at around 7:00 p.m. on the day of the incident and that they had seen a plain-clothed man running after a young man. They further stated that the young man had been shot dead and, subsequently, had been taken into a car. A.B reiterated her previous statement that she gave at the Human Rights Association on 13 May 1996.

On 23 October 1996 Superintendent Sebahattin Hacıoğlu, in his capacity of investigator, drafted a recommendation report (fezleke) concerning the death of İrfan Ağdaş. Mr Hacıoğlu took statements from the applicant, the applicant’s wife, C.A and the police officers, A.K, B.M and A.Y.

The police officers stated that when they were on patrol on 13 May 1996 in the Alibeyköy neighbourhood they requested to see the identity cards of four suspicious persons.  However, upon this request, they started to run away and one of them opened fire. The police officers returned fire in order to arrest him but he was wounded. The police officers seized a gun and twenty-seven copies of a newspaper called Kurtuluş. They took the wounded man to the Eyüp SSK Hospital.

In his report Mr Hacıoğlu concluded that the police officers performed their duty with diligence and that no fault or negligence could be attributed to them. The use of force inflicted by the police officers was in accordance with law. He proposed that no prosecution or disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the police officers.

On 14 November 1996 the Istanbul Provincial Administrative Council (İl İdare Kurulu) decided that the police officers A.K, B.M and A.Y should be prosecuted (lüzum-u muhakemelerine) pursuant to Article 455 of the Criminal Code. It was further decided that the proceedings should be brought against the police officers before the Istanbul Criminal Court of First Instance (Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi).

On 3 February 1997 the Istanbul Criminal Court of First Instance decided that it had no jurisdiction to examine the matter. The court stated that the matter should be examined by the Istanbul Assize Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi). Therefore, it transferred the case file to the office of the Istanbul public prosecutor.

On 6 March 1997 the Istanbul Assize Court decided that it had no jurisdiction to examine the matter as the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Eyüp Assize Court. It transferred the case file to the office of the Eyüp public prosecutor.

On 14 April 1997 the police officers A.K, B.M and A.Y were summoned to appear before the Eyüp Assize Court.

At a hearing on 17 June 1997 the applicant, the applicant’s wife, the applicant’s other brother C.A and A.B gave statements before the Eyüp Assize Court. The police officers did not attend the hearing.

A.B stated as follows:

“On the day of the incident, at around 5.00 or 6.00 hours I was sitting in front of my house. The children were playing on the street. When I heard shootings I stood up. I wanted to go in the house with my grandchildren. [I saw] two plain-clothed police officers approaching. One of them was holding a gun and a big weapon in his hands. The big weapon was almost half a meter long. He was shooting with both of them. He shot İrfan with the big weapon. There was approximately 10 meters distance. I was 3 or 4 meters away from İrfan. When he was wounded he fell on the ground. I went next to him. I asked the police officers why did they shoot him. They did not let me [to help him]. I quickly went to inform the neighbours. The police officers put İrfan into a white car before I came back. İrfan was shot with one bullet. Only one of the bullets hit him although they fired a lot. I assume that they again shot him in the car and killed him.”

At a hearing on 9 September 1997 the Eyüp Assize Court decided to transfer the case file to the Court of Cassation so that the letter could decide whether or not another court should continue to deal with the proceedings on the ground that the trials concerning the police officers had attracted the public and media’s attention. Having regard to the fact that a large number of journalists showed their interest to attend the hearings it was difficult for the court to continue the proceedings for security reasons.

On 17 December 1997 the Court of Cassation decided that it was not necessary to transfer the case to another court and that the Eyüp Assize Court should continue with the proceedings.

On 17 March 1998 the accused police officers testified before the Eyüp Assize Court. B.M stated as follows:

“On that day I was on patrol with my colleagues in the Gülistan Street in the Karadolap neighbourhood where the terrorist activity is very heavy. At around 20.00 hours I saw three men and one woman who seemed to be suspicious. One of them was holding a bag. First I went out of the car, then my colleagues followed me. We told them that we were police officers and that we wanted to make a search. We were standing very close to them. At that moment one of the men and the woman started to run. The other man also started to run through the Gülistan Street. He took out a gun. We were not running after him. I do not remember the distance between us. He opened fire. Actually I heard shootings. I kneeled down [in order to protect myself]. My colleagues were at the back. I stood up. The man again opened fire. I returned fire but I was not targeting. I recognised my colleagues opening fire as well. During the shootings we realised that the man was wounded. We took the man to the hospital. As I stated before, the two men and the women had run away. In order to avoid their possible attack (they could have gathered with some people in the neighbourhood and could have attacked us) we quickly took the wounded person to the hospital. I do not remember if there had been any people around in the neighbourhood at the time of the incident. I did not see anyone. We fulfilled our duty in accordance with law. The superintendent had seized the [wounded] person’s gun. We had no time to collect the empty cartridges. ... When I went close to the wounded person he was talking. He told me that he was shot on his left arm. It did not seem to be a serious wound. I took the gun and put it into the holster. [Then] I gave it to my superiors. I do not know if a fingerprint examination had been conducted later on. We informed the headquarters about the incident.”

A.Y reiterated B.M’s testimony and added that they had found one bullet in the magazine of the person’s gun and five bullets in the cartridge clip after the incident.

At the same hearing the court decided that the officers who collected the empty cartridges be summoned to appear before the court. The court further requested verbatim transcripts of the police radio communications on the day of the incident.

On 22 April 1998 the Eyüp Police Headquarters submitted the verbatim transcripts of the police radio communications to the Eyüp Assize Court.

At a hearing on 28 May 1998, upon the request of the police officers’ representative, the Eyüp Assize Court decided to request the Eyüp Police Headquarters to inform whether or not the transcripts submitted on 22 April 1998 had been the full version of the radio communications. The court further requested the Eyüp Police Headquarters to clarify whether or not the accused police officers had been in the police team which had been in the crime scene and who had been referred to as TEM (Terörle Mücadele-Struggle with Terrorism) in the transcripts.

On 16 February 1999 E.A, one of the police officers who collected the empty cartridges after the incident, testified before the Eyüp Assize Court. He stated that they had found 17 empty cartridges at the crime scene.

The proceedings are still pending before the Eyüp Assize Court.

B.  Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Criminal law and procedure

Under the Turkish Criminal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu) unlawful deprivation of liberty (Article 179 generally, Article 181 in respect of civil servants), coercion through force or threats (Article 188), arson (Articles 369-372), aggravated arson if human life is endangered (Article 382), unintentional arson by carelessness, negligence or inexperience (Article 383), all forms of intentional homicide (Articles 448-455), unintentional homicide (Articles 452 and 459), intentional infliction of damage to someone’s property (Articles 516 and 517) and to harm or kill arbitrarily another person’s animal (Article 521) constitute criminal offences.

For all these offences complaints may be lodged, pursuant to Articles 151 and 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemeleri Usulü Kanunu), with the public prosecutor or the local administrative authorities. Under Article 235 of the Criminal Code, any public official who fails to report to the police or a public prosecutor’s office an offence of which he has become aware in the course of his duty is liable to imprisonment. The public prosecutor and the police have a duty to investigate crimes reported to them, the former deciding whether a prosecution should be initiated, pursuant to Article 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A complainant may appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings.

2. Constitutional provisions on administrative liability

Article 125 of the Turkish Constitution provides as follows:

<Translation>

“All acts and decisions of the Administration are subject to judicial review ... The Administration shall be liable for damage caused by its own acts and measures.”

This provision is not subject to any restrictions even in a state of emergency or war. The latter requirement of the provision does not necessarily require proof of the existence of any fault on the part of the Administration, whose liability is of an absolute, objective nature, based on the theory of “social risk”. Thus, the Administration may indemnify people who have suffered damage from acts committed by unknown or terrorist authors when the State may be said to have failed in its duty to maintain public order and safety, or in its duty to safeguard individual life and property.

Under section 13 of Law no. 2577 on administrative proceedings, anyone who has sustained damage as a result of an act by the authorities may, within one year after the alleged act was committed, claim compensation from them. If the claim is rejected in whole or in part or if no reply is received within sixty days, the victim may bring proceedings before the administrative courts, whose proceedings are in writing.

3.  Civil law provisions

Any illegal act by civil servants, be it a crime or a tort, which causes material or moral damage may be the subject of a claim for compensation before the ordinary civil courts. Pursuant to Article 41 of the Code of Civil Obligations (Borçlar Kanunu), an injured person may file a claim for compensation against an alleged perpetrator who has caused damage in an unlawful manner whether wilfully, negligently or imprudently. Pecuniary loss may be compensated by the civil courts pursuant to Article 46 of the Code of Civil Obligations and non-pecuniary or moral damages awarded under Article 47 of this Code. The civil courts are not bound by the findings of a criminal court as to a defendant’s liability (Article 53).

However, under section 13 of Law no. 657 on State employees, anyone who has sustained loss as a result of the exercise of official duties by a civil servant may, in principle, only bring an action against the public authority in whose service the civil servant concerned works and not directly against the civil servant (Article 129 § 5 of the Constitution and Articles 55 and 100 of the Code of Civil Obligations). If, however, the act is found to be illegal or tortious and, consequently, is no longer considered as an “administrative” act or deed, the civil courts may allow a claim for damages against the official concerned, without prejudice to the victim’s right to bring an action against the authority on the basis of its joint liability as the official’s employer (Article 50 of the Code of Civil Obligations).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that his brother was unlawfully killed by the police forces and that the authorities have failed to carry out an effective investigation.

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was deprived of his right to access to a court.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that his brother was unlawfully killed by the police forces and that the authorities have failed to carry out an effective investigation into his brother’s death. The applicant further complains that he was deprived of his right to access to a court. He invokes Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention.

1. The Government’s preliminary objections

The Government submit that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention. According to them, the applicant had not brought any of the ordinary administrative and civil proceedings that are available under Turkish law and which are effective. The Government submit various examples of cases in which administrative courts have awarded compensation to the families of the persons having died at the hands of the state officials. Moreover, in cases where the administration has exceeded its powers, it is possible to take civil proceedings seeking compensation. The Government submit that the applicant has not availed himself of any of these possibilities. Furthermore there is nothing, in the present case, to suggest that the applicant should be exempted from exhausting domestic remedies.

The Government argue that a criminal investigation has in fact been opened in the course of which various effective investigative measure have been taken in a diligent manner against the police officers who allegedly killed İrfan Ağdaş. These criminal proceedings are still pending as, so far, no final judgment has been handed down.

In case it would be found that the above remedies cannot be regarded as effective, the Government submit that the application has been lodged out of time in that İrfan Ağdaş died on 13 May 1996 whereas the applicant only applied to the Court on 4 December 1996 which is more than six months later.

In reply the applicant submits that the remedies suggested by the Government are ineffective. He argues that the national authorities have failed to conduct an effective and adequate investigation into his brother’s killing. Despite his numerous requests the national courts did not hear the eyewitnesses or collect evidence. In this respect the applicant maintains that the magistrates are entitled to conduct an ex officio investigation in urgent matters pursuant to Article 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, no steps were taken by the authorities in order to conduct a meaningful investigation.

As to the Government’s submission on administrative and civil remedies the applicant submits that the purpose of his applications before the national authorities was not to obtain compensation but rather to bring those responsible for the killing of his brother before justice.

The Court considers that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 of the Convention obliges applicants to use first the remedies referred that are normally available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain, in practice as well as in theory, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Article 35 also requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (cf. Eur. Court HR, Yaşa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, to be published in Reports on Judgments and Decisions 1998, No. 88, § 71).

As regards a civil action for redress for damage sustained through illegal acts or patently unlawful conduct on part of State agents, the Court recalls that a plaintiff to such an action must, in addition to establishing a causal link between the tort and the damage he has sustained, identify the person believed to have committed the tort (cf. Eur. Court HR, Yaşa v. Turkey judgment, loc. cit. § 73). In the instant case, however, it appears that it is still unknown who was responsible for the killing of the applicant’s brother.

As to an action in administrative law under Article 125 of the Constitution based on the authorities’ strict liability, the Court recalls that this remedy cannot be regarded as sufficient for a Contracting State’s obligations under Article 2 of the Convention in cases like the present one, in that this administrative remedy is aimed at awarding damages rather than seeking those guilty of fatal assault (cf. Eur. Court HR, Yaşa v. Turkey judgment, loc. cit., para. 74).

Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant was not required to bring the civil and administrative proceedings suggested by the Government.

Insofar as the applicant has failed to file a criminal complaint, the Court notes that, under Turkish law, this is not a condition sine qua non for the opening of a criminal investigation of a suspected unlawful killing. It appears that, in the present case, the criminal investigation of the killing of the applicant’s brother was in fact opened. The Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the applicant was not required to make an explicit request to open a criminal investigation by filing a criminal complaint himself as this would not lead to any different result in this respect.

As regards the question whether this criminal investigation can be regarded as adequate and effective, the Court is of the opinion that this element is to be considered in its examination of the merits of the case.

Insofar as the Government argues that the application has been filed out of time in that it was introduced more than six months after the killing of the applicant’s brother, the Court reiterates that where no domestic remedy is available the six months’ time-limit contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in principle runs from the date of the act complained of in the application (cf. Eur. Comm. HR, No. 23413/94, Dec. 28.11.95, D.R. 83, p. 31).

However, special considerations could apply in exceptional cases where applicants first avail themselves of a domestic remedy and only at a later stage become aware, or should have become aware, of the circumstances which make that remedy ineffective. In such a situation, the six months period might be calculated from the time when the applicant becomes aware, or should have become aware, of these circumstances (cf. Eur. Comm. HR, No 23654/94, Dec. 15.5.95, D.R. 81, p. 76).

In the present case, it appears that immediately following the incident the applicant’s brother filed various complaints requesting an investigation be conducted into his brother’s death.

It further appears that, only after the Eyüp Assize Court rejected the applicant’s brother’s objection on 4 June 1996 that the applicant started to doubt the effectiveness of the investigation and decided to file an application under the Convention. In these circumstances, the Court accepts that the six-months’ time-limit within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention started to run as from 4 June 1996 at the earliest and, consequently, that the application brought within this time-limit.

Consequently the Court rejects the Government’s preliminary objections.

2. Merits

i. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that his brother was unlawfully killed by the police forces and that the authorities have failed to carry out an effective investigation.

The Government did not make any submissions on this complaint on the ground that the proceedings against the police officers were still ongoing before the national authorities.

Referring to the evidence before the national courts the applicant maintains that his brother was killed by the police officers.

The applicant also alleges that he was subjected to intimidation by the police officers on account of applications pending before the national courts. He asserts that he was taken into police custody with his wife on 7 October 1998 and that they were not informed of the reasons of their arrest.

In reply the Government submit that the applicant’s wife was taken into police custody on 8 October 1998 in the course of an investigation against the members of a terrorist organisation, namely the DHKP/C. The applicant’s wife was released on 14 October 1998 by a decision of the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the case raises complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of merits of the application as a whole. The Court concludes, therefore, that the application is not manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.

ii. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was deprived of his right to access to a court.

With reference to the Court’s established case-law the Government highlight that the fairness of the proceedings should be assessed as a whole. The Government infer from this that the proceedings against the police officers who allegedly killed the applicant’s brother are still ongoing before the national courts. Therefore, the applicant’s complaints should be rejected.

The Court considers that the essence of the applicant’s complaint under this head is closely linked to the requirement imposed on the respondent State under Article 2 of the Convention to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding İrfan Ağdaş’ death. It should therefore also be declared admissible.

 

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Joins to the merits the question concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation at issue,

and

Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Michael O’Boyle Elisabeth Palm 
 Registrar President

AĞDAŞ v. TURKEY DECISION


AĞDAŞ v. TURKEY DECISION