Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The case originated in an application (no. 26307/95) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Tahsin Acar (“the applicant”), on 29 October 1994. The applicant stated that the application was also lodged on behalf of his brother Mehmet Salim Acar [In the documents submitted by the parties, Mehmet Salim Acar is also referred to as Mehmet Salih Acar or as Mehmet Selim Acar.].
The Commission decided on 4 September 1995 to give notice of the application to the Turkish Government and to invite them to submit written observations. The Government submitted their observations on 21 December 1995, to which the applicant responded in his submissions of 20 March 1996.
The Commission declared the application admissible on 30 June 1997 and requested the Government, inter alia , to submit a copy of the complete case-file of the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council ( İl İdare Kurulu ). The Commission reminded the Government of this request on 17 December 1997, 27 January 1998 and 8 September 1999.
The Commission, in accordance with Article 5 § 3, second sentence, of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, transmitted the application to the Court on 1 November 1999, the Commission not having completed its examination of the case by that date.
The application was initially allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. Mr Rıza Türmen, the judge elected in respect of Turkey, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr Feyyaz Gölcüklü to sit as an ad hoc judge.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.