Mansur PAD and Others Vs.Turkey

67. The Court notes that it has already found in a number of Turkish cases that an appeal against decisions of public prosecutors not to prosecute constitutes, in principle, an effective and accessible remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Hıdır Durmaz v. Turkey, no. 55913/00, § 29, 5 December 2006, and Epözdemir, cited above).

68. That being so, the Court observes that it is not required to determine whether the notification document in question was indeed served on the applicants. Even if the decision not to prosecute had not been formally served on the applicants, the Court considers that the applicants and/or their representative, had they acted more diligently, could have apprised themselves of the decision much sooner. It notes in this connection that, under the relevant domestic law (see paragraphs 36 and 37 above), the applicants could have contested the prosecutor’s decision within fifteen days after the date on which they found out about it. However, the applicants did not avail themselves of that remedy even after they had learned about the prosecutor’s decision (see paragraph 60 above).

69. In so far as the applicants sought to rely on the Issa and Others decision (see paragraph 63 above), the Court would note that, given their ability to instruct a lawyer in the United Kingdom, they cannot claim that the judicial mechanism in Turkey, a foreign country, was physically and financially inaccessible to them.

70. Accordingly, the Court does not find any circumstances dispensing the applicants from the obligation to object to the public prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute in order to exhaust domestic remedies (see, as the most recent authority, Hıdır Durmaz, cited above, §§ 29-31). The Court further notes in this connection the applicants’ failure to display due diligence by appointing a local legal representative to follow up their case as required by Turkish law (see paragraph 38 above).

71. Against this background, the Court upholds the Government’s objection that the applicants have failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
72. It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to reject the application.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Tags: 13, 14, 18 and 34 of the Convention, 3, 5, Articles 2, commit unintentional homicide, deprive an individual unlawfully of his or her lib, individual to torture or ill-treatment, intentional homicide