EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS  
825  
16.11.2000  
Press release issued by the Registrar  
JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF BİLGİN v. TURKEY  
In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 16 November 2000 in the case of İhsan Bilgin v.  
Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously:  
that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading  
treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights;  
that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)  
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property);  
that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy);  
that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) or Article  
18 (limitation on use of restrictions on Convention rights); and  
that Turkey had failed to comply with their obligations under former Article 25 § 1  
(not to hinder right to make individual application; now replaced by Article 34) of the  
Convention.  
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded, unanimously, the  
applicant 22,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. It also  
awarded, unanimously, GBP 21,500 for legal costs and expenses less the amount awarded for  
legal aid by the Council of Europe.  
1. Principal facts  
The applicant, İhsan Bilgin, a Turkish national, was born in 1960 and currently lives in  
Batman (Turkey).  
The applicant alleged that in 1993 and 1994, gendarmes, under the orders and responsibility  
of the Çatakköprü gendarmerie station commander and the Silvan District gendarmerie  
station commander, damaged the fittings, furniture and household goods in his house in the  
hamlet of Yukarıgören near to the village of Güzderesi (Silvan district of Diyarbakır  
province) and that eventually his house was burned. In support of his account, the applicant  
submitted various photographs and documents.  
According to the Government, there were many PKK activities in the area concerned at the  
material time and it was regularly patrolled by gendarme forces. However, no operation had  
been conducted in or around Güzderesi during this period. The Government further  
submitted, although the applicant had not filed an official complaint with the domestic  
authorities, that an investigation of the applicant’s allegations had been conducted which  
resulted in a decision of 4 June 1998 by the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council  
concluding that there was insufficient evidence in support of the applicant’s allegations.  
- 2 -  
2. Procedure and composition of the Court  
The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 March  
1994. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 21  
October 1999 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of  
Article 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 3 and Article 13 of the  
Convention, and that there had been no violation of Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention.  
The Commission further held that Turkey had failed to comply with their obligations under  
former Article 25 of the Convention. It referred the case to the Court on 30 October 1999.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:  
András Baka (Hungarian), President,  
Benedetto Conforti (Italian),  
Giovanni Bonello (Maltese),  
Peer Lorenzen (Danish),  
Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger),  
Anatoly Kovler (Russian),  
Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge,  
and also Erik Fribergh, Section Registrar.  
3. Summary of the judgment1  
Complaints  
The applicant complained that the destruction by gendarmes of his home and possessions  
violated his right to respect for his private and family life and home as guaranteed by Article  
8, as well as his property rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He also  
complained that this treatment was so serious that it amounted to inhuman and degrading  
treatment contrary to Article 3.  
Complaining that allegations of unlawful acts committed by security forces in south-east  
Turkey are not or not adequately investigated, the applicant further alleged that he had no  
effective remedy as guaranteed by Article 13.  
The applicant also complained that the destruction of his home and possessions illustrated the  
discriminatory policy, prohibited by Article 14, which is pursued by the Turkish authorities  
against persons of Kurdish origin and the existence of an authorised practice disclosing  
restrictions on Convention rights imposed for ulterior purposes and therefore contrary to  
Article 18.  
The applicant finally complained that his right of unhindered petition, guaranteed by former  
Article 25 of the Convention, was disrespected in that, after he had filed his application with  
the Commission, he had been taken to the Çatakköprü gendarmerie station where he was  
questioned about this application and was forced to sign a statement purporting to retract it.  
1. This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.  
- 3 -  
Decision of the Court  
The Court’s assessment of the facts  
The Court noted that the Commission had carried out a hearing of witnesses in this case.  
With the exception of one factual element, i.e. whether or not the gendarmes of the  
Çatakköprü gendarmerie station were assisted by other security forces on 13 October 1993, as  
established by the Commission but contradicted by a fresh complete copy of the gendarmerie  
duty ledger for the day in question, submitted by the Government, the Court accepted the  
facts as established by the Commission. The Court found no grounds in the arguments  
advanced by the Turkish Government for holding that the Commission’s assessment of the  
evidence was not in accordance with the established principles for assessing evidence under  
the Convention system. It was accordingly established that security forces were responsible  
for the destruction of the applicant’s home and possessions and that the loss of his home and  
possessions, which deprived him of his livelihood, caused the applicant and his family to  
abandon the hamlet where they had lived until then and to settle elsewhere.  
Article 3 of the Convention  
The Court found that the destruction of the applicant’s home and possessions by security  
forces amounted to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. It held that,  
even in the most difficult of circumstances, such as the fight against organised terrorism and  
crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms treatment contrary to this provision. It  
considered that, even assuming that the acts in question were carried out without any  
intention of punishing the applicant but instead as a discouragement to others or to prevent  
his home from being used by terrorists, this would not provide a justification for the treatment  
complained of by the applicant. Noting the circumstances in which the applicant’s home and  
possessions had been destroyed as well as his personal circumstances, the Court considered  
that the destruction of the applicant’s home and possessions by security forces must have  
caused him suffering of sufficient severity to categorise the acts complained of as inhuman.  
Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Having established that security forces were responsible for the destruction of the applicant’s  
home and possessions, the Court found violations of Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No.  
1.  
Article 13 of the Convention  
Referring to its reasoning in, amongst others, its judgment of 28 March 2000 in the case of  
Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, the Court considered that the national authorities had been under an  
obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the destruction of  
the applicant’s home and possessions. The Court recalled that defects found in the  
investigatory system in force in south-east Turkey undermined the effectiveness of criminal  
law protection during the first half of the nineties which permitted or fostered a lack of  
accountability of members of the security for their actions and that it had already previously  
expressed serious doubts as to the ability of administrative authorities in south-east Turkey to  
carry out an independent investigation.  
- 4 -  
Noting that the domestic investigation that was conducted in the applicant’s case appeared to  
be limited in scope to the specific dates mentioned by the applicant, who is illiterate, without  
considering the possibility that the alleged actions might have taken place on other dates and  
the fact that relevant gendarmerie records had only been verified by the military authorities  
themselves and not by the responsible public prosecutor, the Court concluded that no  
effective investigation as required by Article 13 had been conducted.  
Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention  
As to the applicant’s complaint that the destruction of his home and possessions illustrated a  
policy of discrimination against persons of Kurdish origin in violation of Article 14 and the  
existence of an authorised practice contrary to Article 18, the Court did not find, on the basis  
of the facts established, that there had been a violation of these two Articles.  
Former Article 25 of the Convention  
The Court recalled that in previous cases it had held that the questioning of applicants about  
their application by the authorities may amount to a form of illicit and unacceptable pressure,  
hindering the exercise of the right of individual petition in breach of former Article 25 of the  
Convention. The applicant in this case had been taken to the Çatakköprü gendarmerie station,  
where he was questioned about his application. This had apparently taken place on the  
gendarmerie command’s own initiative as no instruction to this effect had been given by the  
public prosecutor responsible for the investigation of the applicant’s allegations. The Court  
held that such questioning by an official of those authorities allegedly directly responsible for  
the events complained of in the application is incompatible with the effective operation of the  
system of individual petition under the Convention. Consequently, the Court held that the  
Turkish Government had failed to comply with their undertaking under former Article 25 of  
the Convention.  
Article 41 of the Convention  
The Court awarded the applicant GBP 12,000 for pecuniary damages and GBP 10,000 for  
non-pecuniary damage. For costs and expenses, it awarded GBP 21,500 less the amount  
awarded for legal aid by the Council of Europe.  
***  
The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).  
Registry of the European Court of Human Rights  
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex  
Contacts:Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)  
Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)  
Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with  
alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998  
a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time  
Commission and Court.