issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 054 (2019)
05.02.2019
Judgments of 5 February 2019
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments1:
one Chamber judgment is summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for two
other Chamber judgments in the cases of Utvenko and Borisov v. Russia (application nos. 45767/09
and 40452/10) and Ndayegamiye-Mporamazina v. Switzerland (no. 16874/12);
two Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can
The judgment below is available only in French.
Algül and Others v. Turkey (application no. 59864/12)
The applicants are seven Turkish nationals, Mr İlyas Algül, Mr Cebrail Algül, Mr Cem Algül, Mr Mikail
Algül and Ms Zülal Algül, Ms Zeynep Avcı and Ms Ayşe Çiçek, who were born between 1959 and 1996
and live in Malatya (Turkey).
The case concerned the death of their relative, Erol Algül, while performing military service.
On 28 September 2005, Erol Algül, who was performing his compulsory military service in Şanlıurfa,
was found under the rubble of a guard post which had collapsed on him. He died from his injuries in
Şanlıurfa Public Hospital. A criminal investigation was opened by the authorities of their own
motion.
On 31 October 2008 the Diyarbakır military prosecutor’s office declined jurisdiction and transmitted
the criminal investigation file to the Şanlıurfa State Prosecutor, who in turn declined jurisdiction and
returned the file to the military prosecutor’s office. On 6 May 2009 the prosecutor’s office again
declined jurisdiction and returned the file to the State Prosecutor. The applicants challenged that
decision before the Diyarbakır military court and the military prosecutor’s office was finally
instructed to examine the case.
On 2 July 2012 the Diyarbakır military prosecutor issued a discontinuance decision on the grounds
that the criminal investigation had failed to establish those responsible. In August 2012 a further
investigation was conducted and on 6 August 2015 the military prosecutor ended the investigations.
On 13 August 2015 the military court dismissed an appeal by the applicants.
In the meantime, in July 2014 the applicants brought an action before the Supreme Military
Administrative Court, seeking compensation. Those proceedings are currently pending.
Relying on the procedural limb of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human
Rights, the applicants alleged in particular a violation of the Convention.
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Just satisfaction: The applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
