Violation of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The circumstances in which the applicant ’s brother disappeared are disputed . In accordance with former LAW ( a ) of ORG conducted an investigation with the assistance of the parties and obtained documentary evidence and oral depositions .

Delegates from the Commission heard witnesses on DATE in GPE and from DATE in GPE . They also visited the offices of the anti - terrorist branch at ORG on DATE . Evidence was taken from the following witnesses : the applicant , CARDINAL people who had been in custody at the material time at ORG and who alleged that they had met PERSON there and had witnessed the ill - treatment to which he had been subjected , CARDINAL public prosecutors who had investigated the case , a deputy director at ORG and a police officer from the anti - terrorist branch at ORG .

At TIME on DATE the applicant ’s brother , PERSON , was arrested at a taxi rank in NORP ( GPE ) by plainclothes police officers . His family was not informed .

The applicant received CARDINAL anonymous telephone calls from someone who confirmed that his brother was being held at ORG ) with CARDINAL other prisoners . He was told that his brother ’s condition was serious and that he was being administered serum . During the last conversation , which took place on DATE , the caller said that the applicant ’s brother had been moved elsewhere .

On DATE PERSON lawyer , PERSON , contacted ORG of ORG . She and CARDINAL other lawyers also made a written statement to the press .

By an undated letter the applicant requested information from ORG at ORG about his brother ’s health , indicating that his brother had been arrested on DATE . On DATE a similar request was made to ORG by PERSON , who put the date of the arrest at DATE .

NORP In his letters in reply dated DATE ORG said that no one by the name of PERSON had been interviewed and that no warrant had been issued for his arrest .

On DATE the applicant made a written statement to the press . DATE , his representatives contacted the GPE branch of ORG about his brother ’s case . On DATE the association issued an appeal to the provincial governor of GPE for PERSON to be brought before the public prosecutor , while the applicant managed to obtain written statements signed by CARDINAL prisoners who had also been held at ORG DATE , in which they confirmed that PERSON had been held there between those dates and subjected to ill - treatment .

On DATE PERSON wrote to ORG at ORG to enquire what had become of PERSON . She explained that although several witnesses affirmed that they had seen him in police custody , the police denied that he had been detained .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the GPE public prosecutor against the officers who had been on duty while his brother was in custody , namely police officers from the anti - terrorist branch at ORG . Inter alia , he gave the names of witnesses who had testified that PERSON had been held in the same building as them .

Furthermore , at a hearing on DATE in criminal proceedings before ORG , one of the defendants , whose name was PERSON , testified to having met PERSON at ORG . Another defendant , Mr ORG , said in evidence before the court that police officers had threatened him , telling him that unless he made a confession he would meet the same fate as PERSON .

When making a bail application to ORG on DATE , a lawyer , PERSON , said that while he and PERSON were in custody together they had spoken and PERSON had told him that he had been held for DATE and that the police intended to arrange for his disappearance . PERSON had also asked PERSON to inform his family .

The DATE ’s position was that while it was true that PERSON was a member of ORG of GPE ( TDKP ) , he was not wanted by the police and had not been arrested by the security forces . As the GPE public prosecutor had stated in a letter of DATE to ORG , the custody records showed that PERSON had not been arrested or detained .

In a statement made on CARDINAL or DATE , a lawyer , PERSON , said that he had spoken with PERSON , who had informed him that he had been in custody for DATE and that his name had not been entered on the custody record .

PERSON stated that prisoners in custody in the offices of the anti - terrorist branch of ORG from DATE had been systematically subjected to ill - treatment and that he had seen PERSON during that period through an aperture in the cell - door window .

ORG stated that he had been held at ORG from DATE , during which period he and his fellow inmates had been constantly subjected to ill - treatment . On DATE he had met PERSON , whom he already knew , in the toilets .

PERSON stated that he had been held at ORG from DATE . On DATE he had managed to make out through an aperture in the cell - door window a group of police officers dragging a prisoner along the ground to the bathroom . TIME he had seen a person carrying a doctor ’s bag leave the bathroom . He had subsequently learnt that the prisoner ’s name was PERSON .

ORG stated that he had been held at ORG from DATE to DATE and had seen PERSON on several occasions being led away , unclothed , by police officers .

ORG stated that he had been held at ORG from DATE . He had heard the cries of prisoners being subjected to ill - treatment . Through the cell - door window he had seen a prisoner being dragged along the ground by police officers and had later heard his cries of distress and the police ORG questions such as : “ What is your name ? If you do not tell us your name , we will kill you . ” Later , he had seen the same prisoner being taken to the toilet and had heard him call out : “ My name is PERSON ! I am registered at ORG . The police want to kill me . Make sure that public opinion is informed about this ! ”

PERSON stated that he had been held from DATE , during which period police officers had subjected prisoners to ill - treatment . DATE , he had seen a prisoner in the toilets . The man was in poor health . He introduced himself as PERSON and told him that he had been held since DATE , that his name had not been entered on the custody record and that he feared he would be executed .

PERSON stated that she had been held from DATE . She recalled hearing someone call out : “ My name is PERSON ! I was taken into custody on DATE , but my name is not on the custody record . ”

PERSON stated that while being held in custody DATE she had heard someone call out : “ My name is PERSON ! I was taken into custody on DATE and they want to arrange for me to disappear . ” According to her , the prisoner she had seen through the cell - door window was PERSON . He had difficulty walking and his body bore marks of torture .

PERSON stated that he had been held from DATE in the offices of the anti - terrorist branch at ORG . During that period all the prisoners had been systematically subjected to torture . He had been in cell no . CARDINAL . The prisoner in cell no . CARDINAL was subjected to severe ill - treatment DATE . He was taken away naked for torture sessions and dragged back to his cell afterwards . He saw him through an aperture in the cell - door window . The CARDINAL people who took the prisoner away for interrogation were the same CARDINAL people who had interrogated him , so he would have no difficulty in recognising them . DATE , the prisoner from cell no . CARDINAL cried out from the toilets where he had been taken : “ My name is PERSON . They want to arrange for me to disappear ! My name is not on the custody record . ” He had been brought back to cell no . DATE .

The applicant alleged that his brother had been arrested on DATE and that eyewitnesses had seen him in custody . He requested information about his brother ’s fate . His brother ’s lawyer made a similar request alleging that PERSON had been taken into custody by police officers from the anti - terrorist branch of ORG on DATE .

In its petition ORG gave the names of the eyewitnesses who had seen PERSON at ORG .

NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE referring to the complaints lodged by the applicant ’s representatives , the GPE public prosecutor , PERSON , instructed the public prosecutor ’s office at GPE ( GPE ) to question the applicant about the matters raised . He also instructed ORG to start an investigation into the applicant ’s allegations .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that ORG had advised that PERSON had not been taken into custody , his name had not been entered on the custody record and he was not wanted by the police .

On DATE the deputy director at ORG , ORG , sent a letter to the GPE public prosecutor ’s office , the relevant parts of which read :

“ ... DATE and QUANTITY DATE the anti - terrorist branch carried out CARDINAL arrests . Of those arrested , CARDINAL were brought before the principal public prosecutor at ORG and the remaining CARDINAL released . In addition on CARDINAL and DATE ORG carried out CARDINAL ad hoc visits to ORG . They did not report any case of unlawful detention there ... In the interests of an effective investigation , persons remanded in custody , whether members of the same or of different organisations , never see each other unless a confrontation becomes necessary . Even for the purposes of answering a call of nature , remand prisoners are taken to the toilets individually and are accompanied by a warder . Furthermore , members of the same organisation are put in cells that are far apart from each other ... The sole aim of the persons whose names appear in the complaint and who claim to have seen the person known as PERSON is to mislead the judicial authorities , to discredit the police and to obstruct the operations being carried out against illegal organisations ... The NORP police are proud of their CARDINAL-year history . Certain people seek to destroy the democratic secular Republic ; they commit crimes , arguing that such unlawful acts are legitimate , and make allegations such as the present one to discredit the police and the State . ”

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor , PERSON , informed ORG that , while it was true that an investigation had been started into the affairs of members of the TDKP , PERSON name did not appear on the list of its members .

On DATE ORG , ORG , sent a letter to the GPE public prosecutor ’s office , which was in charge of the investigation . The relevant parts of the letter read :

“ ORG ( CPT ) interviewed prisoners in FAC who had been transferred from the anti - terrorist branch at ORG and who said that they had seen PERSON in DATE in the building where remand prisoners are detained . When we spoke to them , they said that they had seen PERSON DATE through an aperture in their cell - door windows when he was being taken to the toilets , to the torture room or to be photographed . The investigation reveals that the section of the premises where remand prisoners are held contains individual cells with windows in the cell door that enable police officers to communicate with the prisoners or to pass them their food and which can only be opened from the outside by the warders . The cells are aired by a ventilator attached to the ceiling and it is impossible for prisoners to see what is happening outside . Prisoners are interrogated on the floor above in an interview room that complies with NORP standards . The cells are not numbered but a small sheet of paper bearing the prisoner ’s name is attached to the cell door . Persons arrested are photographed and fingerprinted by the technical services at ORG . DATE and DATE , CARDINAL people were taken into custody at the anti - terrorist branch of ORG ; of these , CARDINAL were released by the police , CARDINAL brought before a judge and CARDINAL transferred to other branches at ORG . Thus , with the exception of PERSON , there had been no complaints of any disappearances of prisoners being held in custody . According to the inquiry conducted by the ORG on CARDINAL and DATE , in an unannounced visit to ORG , there are no reports of unlawful detention on the LOC . Considering that the purported witnesses did not know either PERSON or his family and that the ORG state that his name was not on the custody record , it can safely be deduced that the allegations of the prisoners regarding the disappearance of the person known as PERSON while in custody at ORG were aimed at misleading public opinion and harming the police as they attempted to mount operations against the illegal organisations . ”

On DATE the public prosecutor PERSON took witness statements from ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG , who were all accused of being members of an illegal extreme left - wing organisation , the PERSON . The following depositions were taken .

( a ) Cavit Nacitarhan : “ I was arrested on DATE and remained in custody for DATE . I did not know PERSON . However , after my second day in custody I saw him DATE . He would cry out : ‘ My name is PERSON , I have been in custody since DATE and my name has not been entered on the records ; if anyone is released , please inform the press , lawyers and human rights [ associations ] about my case.’ I do not know why he was arrested but I saw him over a period of DATE . He was dressed only in his underpants . He did not have the strength to stand unaided and had to be supported by CARDINAL people . After my release , I saw his photograph in newspaper articles about his disappearance and that is how I recognised him . ”

( b ) PERSON : “ I was taken into custody on DATE . I did not know PERSON , but I saw him CARDINAL times at ORG . He was dressed only in his underpants . I was in cell no . CARDINAL and he was in cell no . CARDINAL . When he was taken to the toilets , he would cry out : ‘ My name is PERSON . They want to arrange for me to disappear . My name has not been entered on the custody records.’ Later , he was taken from his cell . That is all I witnessed . [ I ] certify that the signature on the written statement made on CARDINAL or DATE is mine . ”

( c ) PERSON : “ I certify that I signed the written statement dated DATE . When I was in custody at the offices of the anti - terrorist branch at ORG DATE , I saw PERSON on several occasions . At CARDINAL stage , I noticed that he was being dragged by his arm to the toilets in his underpants . He was often taken for interrogation and was severely tortured . He was in cell no . CARDINAL . On DATE I saw him in the toilets . He said to me in a weak voice : ‘ My name is PERSON , I was arrested on DATE at Dikmen . My name has still not been entered on the records . They are probably going to arrange for me to disappear . If you get out of here , contact the public prosecutor ’s office and inform the press.’ The warder then appeared and reprimanded him for having spoken to me , before taking him away . Later I recognised his photograph in the newspapers . ”

( d ) PERSON : “ I was taken into custody on DATE and was put in cell no . CARDINAL . PERSON was in no . CARDINAL or DATE . I did not know him . We were severely tortured . The remand prisoner in no . CARDINAL stopped me and , as I was known as ‘ the lawyer’ , asked me if I really was a lawyer . He gave me his name and continued : ‘ I have been here for DATE . My name has not been entered on the records . They probably want to arrange for me to disappear . I worked at a printer ’s . If you are brought before a judge , tell the lawyers that I am here.’ He too was tortured . I heard the sounds of torture and groans . I certify that the signature on the written statement is mine and confirm the content . I saw his photograph in the newspapers later . However , he seemed far more exhausted and tired [ in custody ] . ”

( e ) Müjdat Yılmaz : “ I confirm the content of the written statement of DATE . I do not know PERSON , but I saw him on CARDINAL or three occasions . I was in cell no . CARDINAL . I saw him being taken to the toilets by his torturers and heard him call out : ‘ My name is PERSON . They want to arrange for me to disappear.’ I saw him like that CARDINAL times . I am able to recognise these men [ the police officers ] because they also undressed my wife before my eyes . CARDINAL of them was smaller than me , QUANTITY tall with a receding hairline and was called ‘ LOC by the others . He was one of the men who took PERSON away . I would recognise him without any hesitation . I made a statement to the public prosecutor who came to the prison . ”

Referring to the statements of these witnesses , the public prosecutor PERSON enquired of ORG whether an investigation had been started following the allegations that PERSON had been tortured and had disappeared after being taken into custody in the offices of the anti - terrorist branch of ORG .

On the instructions of the public prosecutor PERSON , CARDINAL police officers from ORG at ORG ( GPE ) took a statement from the applicant on DATE . The applicant stated that a cousin had informed him that his brother had been arrested in GPE on DATE . He and his brothers had gone to the offices of ORG , had consulted lawyers and had learnt that certain prisoners had claimed that PERSON had been in custody in the same building as them but had not been brought before a judge for an order to be made for his detention pending trial .

On DATE the applicant had given a statement at ORG ( GPE ) police station . He said that he had lodged a complaint with the GPE public prosecutor ’s office and had given the names of witnesses who said that they had seen PERSON in the offices of the anti - terrorist branch at ORG . He had repeated his allegations and asked for news of his brother .

By a letter of DATE in which he referred to the applicant ’s complaint and statement , the public prosecutor PERSON requested the Pertek ( GPE ) public prosecutor ’s office for the locality where the register of births of the PERSON family was held to conduct an investigation into the alleged disappearance of PERSON , and in so doing to have regard to the possibility that he may have taken part in ORG ( Workers’ ORG ) activities . He added that ORG considered the allegations of the applicant and his lawyers regarding the alleged disappearance at the hands of the police to be an attempt to damage the police ’s reputation .

By letters of DATE and DATE the Pertek public prosecutor instructed the district gendarmerie to make enquiries of the people with whom PERSON was in close contact in order to establish whether he had joined the ranks of the ORG .

On DATE the gendarmes took a statement from someone who lived in the village in which PERSON was born . He said that the PERSON family had left the village DATE and that he did not know whether PERSON was a member of the ORG .

On DATE the public prosecutor PERSON instructed ORG to carry out a search for PERSON . The relevant part of his letter reads as follows .

“ An investigation has been carried out into allegations by PERSON that his brother , who was arrested on DATE at ORG ) , was taken into custody in the offices of the anti - terrorist branch of ORG , that he was seen by other prisoners but has given no signs of life since . Other enquiries have been made into the possibility that PERSON belongs to the ORG organisation or that attempts have been made to damage the police ’s reputation , and enquiries have been made of the authorities of the village where he was born and in the locality where he resides . However , it is not been possible to reach any conclusion in this case .

“ I wish to request your department to start an investigation into every eventuality , namely whether PERSON disappeared while in police custody , or whether he has joined the ranks of the ORG or has been hiding in secret in GPE and has in fact been used by people close to him with a view to damaging the reputation of the police . I should be grateful if you would then inform me of the result of your findings . ”

The delegation visited the LOC in which prisoners were held at the offices of the anti - terrorist branch of ORG . It was informed that alterations had been made to the layout of the cells on the ground floor at DATE . There were now CARDINAL cells ( CARDINAL cells having been converted into a single cell ) running along CARDINAL side of a long , narrow corridor . The delegation found an empty room at the end of that corridor , with a small corridor leading off to the adjoining toilets . The ORG names and numbers were written on cards inserted into slots above the doors with the reverse side facing outwards . The police officer in charge of the LOC said : “ Prisoners have no possibility of seeing or speaking to each other and their movements in the LOC are made in accordance with official regulations . Dishes are passed directly through the door with the prisoners being required to stand back . The police officer in charge of the LOC where prisoners are held has a list of the people in custody and of the cell numbers , and prisoners do not change cells while in custody . ” The delegation carried out CARDINAL experiments on the LOC .

( i ) CARDINAL delegates were shut in CARDINAL adjoining cells . CARDINAL said his name out loud . He was heard by the other and by the group in the corridor .

( ii ) A delegate was shut in a cell and a lawyer from the delegation in a cell CARDINAL doors away . In order to establish what they could hear , they were asked to speak in their cells . The lawyer heard the delegate ’s voice but said that the noise from the ventilation system prevented him from making out what he said .

The delegation then visited the interrogation room on the first floor .

The name PERSON does not appear on the custody records at ORG . The records show that several people were arrested and taken into custody at the ORG DATE , including PERSON and PERSON on DATE , PERSON , ORG and PERSON on DATE , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON on DATE , PERSON on DATE , and ORG on DATE .

On DATE in GPE and CARDINAL DATE in GPE , ORG delegates took the following depositions .

İrfan PERSON is the applicant and PERSON brother . He said that his brother had been arrested on DATE at ORG ) and that he had been informed of the arrest DATE .

His brother had been arrested as part of an operation that had been carried out by the security forces in different localities on DATE against members of ORG .

PERSON had previously been in custody in DATE and had spent DATE in prison . He had been a member of the revolutionary movement since DATE and had been on the police ’s wanted list . In DATE he had been arrested at Gaziantep ( a town in south - east GPE ) in possession of false identity papers . He had been held for DATE and severely tortured . He had told his family that the police had made threats on releasing him , warning him : “ This time , you are safe , you have escaped with your life , but the next time we catch you , you will not leave here alive . ”

The applicant said that following his brother ’s disappearance he had received CARDINAL or CARDINAL telephone calls from CARDINAL Coşkun , who had informed him that his brother was being held at ORG ) and subjected to torture . He was in very poor shape and on a drip .

NORP The applicant said that he had contacted people who claimed to have been held on the same LOC as PERSON . After speaking to them , he had lodged applications with ORG , ORG , the Secretary of ORG and ORG . However , despite the evidence of several prisoners , those authorities had denied that his brother had ever been in custody .

The applicant said that he had lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor ’s office . However , he was unaware whether an investigation had been started . He had been required to attend the offices of the anti - terrorist branch at ORG either once or twice and had repeated his allegations .

The witness is a lawyer who currently lives in GPE , where he has been granted political asylum . He said that he was arrested by police officers from ORG in his office on DATE and held by the anti - terrorist branch for DATE . He was detained in a small cell and had changed cells on CARDINAL occasions .

He gave the following description of the LOC where prisoners were held . The cells were not numbered and ran the length of CARDINAL side of a corridor . On the other side of the corridor was a room used for torture , toilets , a bathroom that was also used for torture , the warders’ office and CARDINAL other cells that were larger and better furnished than the others . The doors were equipped with small windows , CARDINAL across , through which the prisoners could be observed . Both the windows and the cell doors were opened from time to time by the warders . By pressing his head firmly against the aperture in the cell - door window , he was able to see what was going on outside and had thus seen the other prisoners when they were taken away to be tortured .

When first taken into custody he had been put in a cell between the toilets and the bathroom that doubled up as a torture chamber . The prisoner in the cell next door was a university lecturer . The witness said that he had heard groans coming from the cell next to the lecturer ’s . He explained that he was systematically tortured and that TIME , at the end of the torture session and after he had been taken back to his cell , the prisoner , who was groaning and was in very poor shape had said to him : “ I have been detained for DATE . My name is PERSON . You are the lawyer of a close relative of mine , PERSON , who is currently being held in FAC . My name has not been entered on the custody records . They are going to arrange for me to disappear . Could you inform my family and the lawyers that I have been detained ? ” On hearing this , the witness had tried to reassure the man , saying that he now had an eyewitness to his detention and that he could no longer be regarded as having disappeared . DATE , on returning to his cell after another torture session that had lasted TIME , he noticed that all the prisoners had changed cells . He had not see PERSON again .

The witness said that detention in police cells was not always entered on the custody record and that the police officers used that practice as a form of torture . He had heard them tell certain prisoners in custody : “ We have not entered your name on the custody record . We can do as we please with you . ”

He said that he did not know PERSON personally . PERSON lawyer , PERSON , had asked him while visiting the prison whether he had met PERSON at the police station and he had informed her of their conversation .

Cavit Nacitarhan said that he had been arrested on DATE by the police for being a member of an illegal organisation , the TDKP . He had been held in custody for DATE . For DATE he had been taken for interrogation twice daily at TIME During the interrogation sessions he had been systematically tortured . For the remainder of his time in custody he had been given medical attention to remove the marks left by the injuries on his body .

He described the events following his arrest as follows : he had firstly been taken to a place called PERSON , where the police officers had threatened to kill him unless he cooperated with them ; he had been interrogated there before being taken to ORG .

The witness gave the names of other people who had been in custody during the same period . He said that he had learnt their names following a confrontation that had been organised with them or after meeting some of them in the prison . He had heard PERSON name while in police custody .

He related how , in general , prisoners were taken to the toilets in groups of CARDINAL . However , that did not apply to certain prisoners , including himself and another prisoner . They were only allowed to leave their cells to go to the toilet when the doors of the other cells had been shut . Prisoners’ names , apart from his own and that of another prisoner who he later discovered was PERSON , were written on small cards that were fastened to the cell doors . On seeing PERSON photographs in the press , he had immediately realised that it was the same person . One day , when all the cells were closed , he had attempted to see what was going on in the corridor by looking through a small aperture next to the cell - door window . Although his angle of view had been very restricted , he had been able to make out CARDINAL police officers leading a nearly naked prisoner whose eyes were blindfolded . The prisoner had been taken back to his cell TIME . He had seen him several times being dragged across the floor to or from his cell .

DATE he had heard a prisoner saying : “ My name is PERSON . My name has not been entered on the custody record . Please inform my family and public opinion about my case . ” He had heard the same person cry out several times from the bathroom that had been converted into a torture chamber . The man had been asked repeatedly : “ What is your name ? Tell us your name . Do not shout . ”

On DATE a confrontation had been organised with other prisoners who had been arrested as part of the same operation . PERSON was not among them . On DATE the witness had again seen PERSON being led away by police officers . He was in very poor shape . That same evening there seemed to be a panic and the doors had remained closed throughout the evening . Police officers were running in all directions . Since DATE , he had not seen PERSON again . In his opinion , PERSON was executed on DATE .

The witness said that the applicant had visited him in prison in DATE and that was how he had informed him of the date he was taken into custody . They had had a very short discussion about PERSON . He said that he had sent a written statement through his representatives certifying that PERSON had been present at ORG .

According to the witness , although he had been taken into custody on DATE , his detention had not been recorded until DATE , after his admission to hospital . He had informed the public prosecutor of that fact but the public prosecutor had merely accepted the police ORG account .

PERSON said that he had been arrested on DATE with CARDINAL other people and had remained in custody in the offices of the anti - terrorist branch of ORG for DATE . When first detained , CARDINAL prisoners were being held ; DATE , their number had risen to CARDINAL .

The first prisoner he noticed was Cavit Nacitarhan , who was the nephew of a member of ORG and occupied the cell next to his . The police officers had began the torture sessions with ORG , whose body was swollen and covered in bruises and who had difficulty walking . The witness had a clear view of prisoners being taken to the torture chamber , which was diagonally opposite his cell .

He related how , after Cavit Nacitarhan was interrogated , it was the turn of another prisoner to suffer the same treatment . The question he heard most often was : “ What is your name ? ” The prisoner ’s cries had turned into grunts and groans . The last time he had seen him brought by a group of police officers for a torture session , either on DATE , was identical to the others : the same groans , the same question , the same insults , the same cries . The witness went on : “ Suddenly , there was total silence . The police officers came out of the torture chamber and a man carrying a black bag went inside . He looked like a doctor , but was probably from the police . They brought the prisoner out , dragging him behind them . ”

The witness said that the warders opened the windows in their cell doors from time to time to give them bread or water . However , the aperture in the windows to the cells of ORG and the prisoner referred to above were kept shut .

He said that he did not know PERSON before his arrest and had identified him from photographs in the press .

NORP In practice , detention at the anti - terrorist branch was not entered on the records on the day the prisoner was taken into custody . The practice depended on how the interrogation proceeded .

The witness repeated that PERSON had been on the same premises as him for DATE and had been tortured throughout that period .

He stated that he had signed a statement on DATE as testimony for the benefit of public opinion and had made a statement to the public prosecutor .

Talat Abay said that he had been arrested on DATE as a member of an illegal organisation , ORG , and had been held in custody for DATE at ORG . On DATE a number of people had been taken into custody and all the cells were occupied . While in custody , prisoners were systematically subjected to torture .

He had known PERSON before DATE , as he had stayed at the witness ’s home for DATE in DATE and DATE .

He had seen PERSON on TIME CARDINAL DATE , when he was taken to the toilet . They had made eye contact but had not spoken .

The witness said that he had made a written statement confirming that PERSON had been held in custody . In addition , he added that at his trial before ORG he had testified to meeting PERSON at ORG .

The witness , who was a student at the material time , had been held in custody from CARDINAL to DATE , for being a member of the ORG .

DATE . As he had said in his written statement , he and the other prisoners had been systematically taken for torture sessions . The torture chamber was near his cell . For TIME another prisoner had been taken to the torture chamber after him . He was always asked the same question , “ What is your name ? ” , and he had heard cries and groans . He had seen him once , through an aperture in the cell - door window , for TIME , from the front and distinctly , being supported by CARDINAL police officers . The prisoner could not walk without assistance and dragged his feet . The witness had subsequently learnt , after being transferred to prison , that the prisoner ’s name was PERSON .

The witness said that he had no difficulty in being certain that the prisoner who had groaned and cried out in agony was PERSON , since he had seen almost all of the other prisoners in prison .

The police officers would accompany them to the toilet and when they washed their hands and faces in the wash basins , they had an opportunity of meeting other prisoners .

PERSON accompanied the delegates when they visited the offices of the anti - terrorist branch of ORG .

At the material time he was a teacher . He had been arrested by the police on DATE in the village where he taught for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation . He had been detained at ORG on DATE .

The witness reported his findings concerning the LOC visited by the delegates of ORG . The premises had been altered . The cells had been ventilated through the open cell - door windows , there being no ventilation through the ceiling . The room where the custody records were made up had been at what was now the entrance . The cells had been smaller and closer together and there had been additional cells along another corridor . The witness had been held in one of those cells and had remained there for DATE . On DATE of his detention , he had been able to make out , through the open window in his cell door , CARDINAL other prisoners in cells diagonally opposite his own , QUANTITY away . He did not know PERSON before his arrest . He had seen his photograph in the offices of ORG . He had made a statement that he had seen him in custody at ORG and had agreed to give evidence to that effect .

After making his statement he had been intimidated , in the presence of his wife , by a police officer who had visited him at the school where he taught . The police officer had made threats such as : “ You eat from the ORG ’s plate . I will not allow you to dirty that plate . You will suffer the same fate as PERSON . ” He added that , despite the threats , he had deposed before ORG in DATE .

Müjdat Yılmaz said that he had been accused of being a member of the PERSON . He had been arrested on DATE and had remained in custody until DATE .

DATE . As his CARDINAL closest relatives had also been detained on the same LOC , he had endeavoured to keep watch through an aperture in the cell - door window to see what was happening in the corridor . On DATE he had seen a prisoner in the toilets , with his back to the wall . The prisoner was exhausted and did not have the strength to remain upright . He was being insulted and pulled backwards by his hair . The witness had seen the same prisoner on another occasion , in similar circumstances , being dragged along by police officers . On the third occasion he saw him , the prisoner was in very poor shape and incapable of standing up . He had cried out : “ My name is PERSON . I am registered at GPE . The police want to kill me . When you get out of here , inform public opinion about my case . ” The officers in charge had prevented him from saying any more by taking hold of him by his hair and hitting him . After being transferred to prison , the witness had learnt that the prisoner concerned was called PERSON .

The witness said that it was possible to communicate from one cell to another by raising one ’s voice and that he had thus been able to converse from time to time with his niece .

In addition to his written statement he had made a deposition in prison in which he had stated that he could identify the police officers who had dragged PERSON back to his cell . The same officers had undressed his wife before his eyes and he was certain he would recognise them .

PERSON said that he had been arrested for aiding and abetting the PERSON and held in custody from CARDINAL to DATE .

He had seen PERSON in person CARDINAL times and for DATE had heard his groans when he was taken away for interrogation .

CARDINAL prisoners were treated differently from the others . CARDINAL was Cavit Nacitarhan . They were taken separately to the toilet , being dragged there by their arms by QUANTITY police officers . On DATE in custody , while the witness was washing his hands in the washroom , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL prisoners had been brought there . He looked exhausted and had whispered : “ My name is PERSON . I was taken into custody on DATE and my name has still not been entered on the record . I think they want to kill me or to arrange for me to disappear . Inform public opinion about my case . ” The warder had intervened and dragged him back to his cell . He had seen him a second time , lying on his bed in his cell opposite the toilets in his underpants . DATE , he had seen him through the window in his cell door . He was being dragged away .

The witness affirmed that he had heard PERSON cry out from his cell , giving his surname , first name and the name of the province from which he came .

Emine Öğün said that she had been arrested with her husband on CARDINAL DATE for being a member of an illegal organisation and had remained in custody until DATE .

DATE before her release , when asking for water through the window in her cell door , she had seen a prisoner in a bad condition who had said to her : “ My name is PERSON . I was taken into custody on CARDINAL DATE . ”

PERSON said that she had been arrested on DATE at GPE . She had been detained at ORG from DATE .

She affirmed that she had heard someone cry out “ My name is PERSON ” , and had caught a glimpse , through her cell window , of a dark man , bald and with a moustache , whom she had later identified as PERSON .

The witness said that the public prosecutor had taken a statement from her in prison and had asked her to describe the circumstances in which she had seen PERSON .

PERSON said that he had been arrested on DATE for being a member of an illegal organisation and had remained in custody until DATE .

He had been systematically subjected to torture while in detention . He had been able to see through an aperture in the cell - door window that the prisoner in cell no . CARDINAL was subjected to more intensive torture then he . He had seen him being dragged along by QUANTITY police officers , CARDINAL of them supporting him by the arms . On DATE he had seen a person with a bag go into cell no . CARDINAL and had heard someone say : “ He is not taking any milk . He is not drinking any milk . ” On another occasion the witness had seen , again through the window in his cell door , the same prisoner being taken to the toilet . The prisoner had cried out : “ My name is PERSON . They want to arrange for me to disappear . ”

The witness explained that in principle prisoners were not allowed to communicate with each other . However , they would either speak in whispers while at the wash basins or attempt to make themselves heard between cells .

The witness affirmed that he had drafted his written statement in the prison where he was detained . He had been questioned about it by the public prosecutor .

Özden ORG said that at the material time he had been ORG , a position he still held . He had not been directly responsible for the investigation into the allegations concerning PERSON disappearance . His letter of CARDINAL DATE to the GPE public prosecutor ’s office contained a description of the actual conditions of detention and of DATE used for holding prisoners at ORG .

He had been to ORG and had inspected the LOC . He had heard evidence from people who said that they had seen PERSON in custody . Without giving details , the witness affirmed that their statements were inconsistent . He declined to comment on the conclusion , which read : “ Accordingly , it has been concluded that the statements of the persons held in custody were not true . ”

The witness explained that he had drafted his report at the request of ORG and had not organised any confrontation between the prisoners who claimed to have seen PERSON and the police officers present on the premises at the material time .

PERSON said that at the material time he had been the GPE public prosecutor . He was now the public prosecutor for the district of ORG ) .

The witness said that it had been another prosecutor , ORG , who had started the investigation into PERSON disappearance . The witness had been assigned to the case after a complaint was lodged by PERSON brother .

He summarised his investigation as follows . He had sent a letter to ORG enquiring whether PERSON had been detained there . The police had replied that he had at no stage been in custody . He had taken evidence from the witnesses whose names had been supplied by PERSON and they had repeated their written statements , saying that they had seen PERSON , in very poor shape , in custody at ORG . After hearing that evidence he had become convinced that PERSON had disappeared like many others .

The witness went on to say : “ At the material time there had been a number of cases of disappearances and , as a prosecutor , I was very disturbed by this . On hearing the evidence of the witnesses , I realised that the information given by the police did not reflect the truth . I received no replies to the letters I sent to other police departments . I sent the documents from the investigation to ORG , ORG , with a request for the cases to be joined . However , the case file was returned to me . I asked ORG to institute criminal proceedings against the head of ORG under the laws that made it an offence to refuse to cooperate with the relevant prosecuting authorities , as he had failed to produce a list of the police officers on duty when the alleged offences were committed . As the authorities did not respond , I was unable to interview the police officers or to arrange a confrontation with the eyewitnesses . The police enjoyed a sort of immunity at the time . I was not able to visit the premises where the prisoners were detained . ”

The witness explained that DATE was a relatively sensitive date in GPE and that , at that time of DATE , CARDINAL people were being held in police custody ; some of them later disappeared . He said : “ At the material time we , the prosecutors , were unable to inspect prisons or police stations . During a visit to ORG , I heard certain noises and asked the police officers where they were coming from . They replied that they had recorded the sound of people crying out in pain with a view to subduing prisoners . With regard to the present case , I tried to investigate it to the best of my ability . I had strong suspicions but did not manage to get very far . I am of NORP origin and my telephone line was being monitored . I was transferred to GPE ) , the district where I worked DATE . ”

PERSON said that at the material time he was a police officer with the anti - terrorist branch of ORG . He was responsible for compiling the custody records .

He described how the custody records were held . The following information was noted on them : the surname and first name of the accused ; the surname and first names of the accused ’s mother and father ; the accused ’s date of birth ; and the date and time the accused was taken into custody . He said that it was impossible for the name of a person taken into custody to be omitted from the record and that he was under fairly strict instructions in that regard . He said that a custody report was sent DATE to the departmental head and to the public prosecutor at ORG .

He indicated that the labels attached to the door handles were numbered and that the ORG names were written on other labels that were affixed to the cell doors .

With regard to the complaint concerning PERSON disappearance , he had not been interviewed by the authorities and had not been the subject of any investigation . The witness was unable to say whether a prosecutor had inspected the LOC in connection with the investigation . According to him , all the allegations of torture had been invented by certain movements hostile to the government and were totally unfounded .

He said that before the events that had given rise to the present case PERSON had been arrested for being a member of the PERSON . He had been charged and had served his sentence . He had also been taken into custody for other activities as a member of that illegal organisation . His name was on file and the anti - terrorist branch had his case file containing details of his criminal record and of his membership of an illegal organisation .

Ülkü Met said that at the material time he was deputy director at ORG .

He stated that after PERSON brother had lodged the complaint , the public prosecutor had begun an investigation and had made CARDINAL written requests to ORG for information , but he had not inspected the LOC .

The witness stated that the operation carried out by the police against the ORG DATE and DATE was routine and had been undertaken on the basis of information and statements received . The police had relatively large numbers of files on persons who were in custody or had been convicted for belonging to illegal organisations . He said that PERSON had not been arrested during the operation ; his name was not on the custody record and , in his opinion , the other ORG claims that PERSON had been detained at ORG had been concocted by militants .

He explained that at all times CARDINAL police officers were on duty with the responsibility of carrying out body searches on anyone who had been arrested , collecting their personal effects and getting them to sign a list setting these out . They were also required to enter the names of persons arrested on the custody record .

The witness dismissed all allegations of ill - treatment or torture during custody and stated that , while he had been deputy director , ORG for ORG Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) had carried out CARDINAL ad hoc visits to ORG . He was , however , unable to comment on the CARDINAL public statements made by the ORG , in which they had found : “ Torture and other forms of ill - treatment were still important characteristics of police custody . ”

The witness rejected the assertion of the public prosecutor PERSON that ORG had failed to cooperate with him and said that prosecutors in charge of investigations could inspect the premises at any time .

The principles and procedures relating to liability for illegal acts may be summarised as follows .

NORP Under LAW all forms of homicide ( Articles DATE ) and attempted homicide ( Articles CARDINAL and DATE ) constitute criminal offences . It is also an offence for a government employee to subject someone to torture ( Article CARDINAL ) or ill - treatment ( Article CARDINAL ) . The authorities’ obligations in respect of conducting preliminary investigations into acts or omissions capable of constituting such offences that have been brought to their attention are governed by ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW . Offences may be reported to the authorities or the security forces as well as to public ORG offices . The complaint may be made in writing or orally . If it is made orally , the authority must make a record of it ( LAW .

If there is evidence to suggest that a death is not due to natural causes , members of the security forces who have been informed of that fact are required to advise the public prosecutor or a criminal court judge ( Article CARDINAL ) . By Article CARDINAL of LAW , 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 duties is liable to imprisonment .

A public prosecutor who is informed by any means whatsoever of a situation that gives rise to suspicion that an offence has been committed is obliged to investigate the facts in order to decide whether or not there should be a prosecution ( LAW ) .

In the case of alleged terrorist offences , the public prosecutor is deprived of jurisdiction in favour of a separate system of national security prosecutors and courts established throughout GPE .

If the suspected offender is a civil servant and if the offence was committed in the course of his duties , the preliminary investigation of the case is governed by the Law of DATE on the prosecution of civil servants , which restricts the public prosecutor ’s jurisdiction ratione personae at that stage of the proceedings . In such cases it is for the relevant local administrative council ( for the district or province , depending on the suspect ’s status ) to conduct the preliminary investigation and , consequently , to decide whether to prosecute . Once a decision to prosecute has been taken , it is for the public prosecutor to investigate the case .

An appeal to ORG lies against a decision of the local administrative councils . If a decision not to prosecute is taken , the case is automatically referred to that court .

Under LAW of PERSON no . CARDINAL on administrative procedure , anyone who sustains damage as a result of an act by the authorities may , within DATE 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 DATE , the victim may bring administrative proceedings .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ All acts or decisions of the authorities are subject to judicial review ...

The authorities shall be liable to make reparation for all damage caused by their acts or measures . ”

That provision establishes the ORG ’s strict liability , which comes into play if it is shown that in the circumstances of a particular case the ORG has failed in its obligation to maintain public order , ensure public safety or protect people ’s lives or property , without it being necessary to show a tortious act attributable to the authorities . Under these rules , the authorities may therefore be held liable to compensate anyone who has sustained loss as a result of acts committed by unidentified persons .

The ORG has carried out CARDINAL visits to GPE . The first CARDINAL visits , in DATE and DATE , were ad hoc visits considered necessary in the light of the considerable number of reports received from a variety of sources containing allegations of torture or other forms of ill - treatment of persons deprived of their liberty , in particular , those held in police custody . A third visit took place at DATE . There were further visits in DATE , DATE and DATE , and DATE . The ORG ’s reports on these visits , other than the one in DATE , have not been made public , as the ORG ’s consent is required for publication and has not been forthcoming .

The ORG has issued CARDINAL public statements .

In its public statement adopted on DATE , the ORG concluded that torture and other forms of severe ill - treatment were important characteristics of police custody . On its first visit in DATE , the following types of ill - treatment were constantly alleged , namely hanging by the wrists tied together behind the back ( NORP hanging ) , electric shocks , beating of the soles of the feet ( falaka ) , hosing with pressurised cold water and incarceration in very small , dark , unventilated cells . Its medical examinations disclosed clear medical signs consistent with very recent torture and other severe ill - treatment of both a physical and psychological nature . The on - site observations in police establishments revealed extremely poor material conditions of detention .

On its second visit , in DATE , it found that no progress had been made in eliminating torture and ill - treatment by the police . Many persons made complaints of similar types of ill - treatment DATE an increasing number of allegations were heard of forcible penetration of bodily orifices with a stick or truncheon . Once again , a number of the persons making such claims were found on examination to display marks or conditions consistent with their allegations . On its third visit , from DATE to DATE , its delegation was inundated with allegations of torture and ill - treatment . Numerous persons examined by its doctors displayed marks or conditions consistent with their allegations . It listed a number of these cases . At the GPE and ORG , it found equipment that could be used for torture and the presence of which had no other credible explanation . The ORG concluded in its statement that “ the practice of torture and other forms of severe ill - treatment of persons in police custody remain[ed ] widespread in GPE ” .

In its second public statement issued on DATE , the ORG noted that some progress had been made over DATE . However , its findings after its visit in DATE demonstrated that torture and other forms of ill - treatment were still important characteristics of police custody . In the course of the DATE visits , ORG delegations once again found clear evidence of the practice of torture and other forms of severe ill - treatment by police .


Violation of Art. 5-3 (lack of prompt court review);Violation of Art. 5-4;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial awards;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC . The second applicant is the son of the first applicant .

On DATE ORG asked ORG to issue an arrest warrant for QUANTITY persons who were suspected of being involved in an organised criminal gang . The gang was allegedly involved in bribing officials , threatening people into selling their property and in money laundering . The first applicant ’s name was included in the list . Upon the request of ORG , ORG issued a warrant allowing the police to conduct searches of the houses of the suspected persons and to arrest them for the purposes of interrogation .

On DATE both applicants were taken into custody in GPE . The first applicant was arrested at his home . During the search of his residence the police found CARDINAL pistols , CARDINAL hunting rifles , CARDINAL wire strangulation cord , CARDINAL butterfly knife , CARDINAL sets of handcuffs , CARDINAL commando knives , CARDINAL cartridge clips and CARDINAL cartridges . The police prepared a search and arrest report , which was signed by the applicant .

The second applicant was working as a security guard in an exchange office owned by GPE , the person suspected of being the leader of the gang . While the police were conducting a search of the exchange office in order to arrest GPE , the second applicant arrived on the scene and was taken into custody for interrogation .

On DATE the ORG requested authorisation from ORG to extend the applicants’ detention in police custody , as there were a number of suspects .

On DATE both applicants gave statements to the police . They denied any involvement with the gang . In his statement , the first applicant explained that he knew GPE and had occasionally lent him money . He also confirmed that he had bought a shop from him . However , he denied the allegation that he had been instructed by GPE to threaten people .

On DATE both applicants were interrogated by ORG . During their questioning , the applicants repeated the statements they had made to the police . The second applicant was subsequently released . On DATE the first applicant was brought before the investigating judge at FAC , who subsequently ordered his detention on remand .

On DATE the first applicant filed an objection against the remand decision .

On DATE the ORG filed a bill of indictment with ORG against the applicants and CARDINAL others , accusing them of being involved in the activities of an organised criminal gang , namely by bribing officials and threatening people .

On DATE the first applicant filed a petition with the court , requesting his release .

On DATE the applicants’ trial began at ORG . At the end of the hearing , taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence and the evidence in the case file , the court ruled that the first applicant should be kept in detention on remand .

On DATE the first applicant ’s representative challenged the decision to continue to detain the first applicant on remand before ORG , via the registry of ORG . He alleged that there was insufficient evidence to keep his client in detention . Upon the request of ORG , the public prosecutor submitted an opinion on DATE .

On DATE the court refused the first applicant ’s request for release . This decision was sent to ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG held its second hearing and released the first applicant pending trial .

On CARDINAL DATE the court sentenced the first applicant to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and acquitted the second applicant .

The fourth paragraph of LAW ( as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ) provides that any person who has been arrested and/or in respect of whom a prosecutor has made an order for his or her continued detention may challenge that measure before the appropriate district judge and , if successful , be released .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL on ORG or ORG provides :

“ Compensation shall be paid by the ORG in respect of all damage sustained by persons :

( CARDINAL ) who have been arrested , or detained under conditions or in circumstances incompatible with the LAW or statute ;

( CARDINAL ) who have not been immediately informed of the reasons for their arrest or detention ;

( CARDINAL ) who have not been brought before a judicial officer after being arrested or detained within the time allowed by statute for that purpose ;

( CARDINAL ) who have been deprived of their liberty without a court order after the statutory time allowed for being brought before a judicial officer has expired ;

( CARDINAL ) whose close family have not been immediately informed of their arrest or detention ;

( CARDINAL ) who , after being arrested or detained in accordance with the law , are not subsequently committed for trial ... , or are acquitted or discharged after standing trial ; or

( CARDINAL ) who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment shorter than the period spent in detention or ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty only ... ”


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr J. Angermann , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr J. PERSON of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police .

On DATE the ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had smuggled into GPE a large quantity of an illegal substance used for the production of amphetamines . The court held that his detention was necessary to secure the proper course of the proceedings as there was a fear that the applicant would attempt to influence witnesses or evade his trial since he lived in GPE .

On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the decision to detain him .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention . In the latter decision the court relied on the likelihood that a heavy sentence might be imposed on the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was charged with having committed other offences relating to prostitution , deriving profits from it and participating in an organised criminal gang .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL co - accused were indicted before ORG .

On DATE the trial court extended the applicant ’s detention , referring to the grounds given previously and holding that there was a risk that the accused would try to put pressure on witnesses .

On DATE the ORG decided that ORG was competent to try the applicant ’s case . That decision was quashed on appeal by ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) on DATE .

On DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention . The trial court reiterated the grounds given previously and found that the accused had not proved the existence of circumstances justifying their release . The court also held that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper course of the trial as not all the witnesses had been heard yet .

The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of DATE but it was dismissed on DATE by ORG .

As the length of the applicant ’s detention had reached the statutory timelimit of DATE laid down in LAW of LAW ( Kodeks postępowania karnego ) , ORG applied to ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) , asking for the applicant ’s detention to be extended beyond that term . ORG extended his detention on DATE and DATE . The court justified it by the probability that a severe sentence might be imposed on the applicant , which made it likely that , if released , he would obstruct the proceedings .

The applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE but the appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

Applications by the applicant for release or for the imposition of other preventive measures were dismissed on DATE and on DATE and DATE .

The trial court held the first hearing on DATE . Thereafter , hearings were held at regular intervals .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment in the applicant ’s case . The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine . The applicant did not appeal against that judgment and it became final .

On DATE the applicant was released .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its prolongation , release from detention and rules governing other , so - called “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


CASE OF PIALOPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Just satisfaction reserved

The first applicant is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in GPE . The second applicant is also a NORP citizen born in DATE and living in Filothei in Attika . The third applicant is the first applicant ’s stepbrother . He is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in GPE . The fourth applicant is the first applicant ’s sister . She is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in GPE .

On DATE the first CARDINAL applicants bought a plot of land in PERSON of a total surface of QUANTITY ( block FAC on the town plan ) . The first applicant became the owner of PERCENT of the plot and the second applicant of the rest . On CARDINAL DATE GPE PERSON gave the CARDINAL applicants permission to demolish some old buildings that existed on the plot .

On DATE the CARDINAL applicants applied to the Prefecture for a permit to build a multi - storey shopping centre thereon .

On DATE at a meeting of ORG the mayor informed the councillors that urgent action had to be taken to block the proposed development and accepted that unusual means were being used to forestall the delivery of the permit . However , a councillor drew the mayor ’s attention to the fact that the municipality lacked adequate means to expropriate the applicants’ plot .

On DATE the Prefect of Eastern Attika decided not to issue any new building permits in respect of commercial premises of a certain size ( buildings exceeding CARDINAL of the maximum authorised size ) in PERSON for DATE ( decision no . DATE published in ORG on DATE ) . He exempted commercial premises for which an application had already been lodged , provided that the file was “ complete ” in accordance with the presidential decree of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG , Town Planning and Public Works advised the first CARDINAL applicants that the file which they had submitted together with their application for a building permit was “ complete ” . Given the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE , the file “ would continue to be considered complete pending resumption of the delivery of new building permits ” .

On DATE the Prefect of PERSON decided “ to extend the freeze on new building licences in respect of block No . CARDINAL in PERSON by DATE as from CARDINAL DATE ” .

On DATE the ORG decided to change the authorised use of the applicants’ plot from development land to park land ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL published in ORG on DATE ) . Following this decision , the first CARDINAL applicants requested the town planning authorities of the prefecture to decide who should compensate them for the expropriation of their plot of land . On DATE the town planning authorities decided that the applicants should be expropriated by , among others , GPE ( act no . CARDINAL ) . The municipality appealed to the ORG who , on DATE , confirmed act no . CARDINAL of the town planning authorities and ordered the municipality to compensate the CARDINAL applicants in respect of QUANTITY . The municipality appealed against the prefect ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE to the Secretary General of ORG claiming that it should not bear on its own the cost of compensating the applicants for the QUANTITY in question . On CARDINAL DATE the Secretary General confirmed the decision of CARDINAL DATE of the prefect ( decision no . DATE ) .

On DATE the first CARDINAL applicants asked the single - member first instance civil court ( monomeles protodikio ) of GPE provisionally to determine their compensation . On DATE the court decided that the CARDINAL applicants should receive MONEY .

On DATE GPE applied to ORG ( PERSON ) for judicial review of decision no . MONEY of the Secretary General of ORG . The first CARDINAL applicants intervened in favour of the Secretary General .

On DATE the Secretary General of ORG approved a new town plan for PERSON , which was published in ORG on DATE .

On DATE the Prefect of Eastern Attika decided to amend the new town plan of PERSON . It was provided that the applicants’ plot could only be used as a park and for underground parking . The decision was published in ORG on DATE .

On DATE the first CARDINAL applicants requested ORG ( efetio ) of GPE to declare under LAW legislative decree no . CARDINAL that the ORG ’s decision no . DATE concerning the expropriation had been revoked ipso jure on CARDINAL DATE because the compensation fixed provisionally had not been paid within DATE from the first instance civil court ’s decision of DATE . The ORG and GPE were parties to the proceedings . On DATE ORG acceded to the ORG request ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE and DATE ORG of Neo Psihiko discussed the future of the applicants’ plot . On the second occasion , the mayor stated that he had been unable to conclude a loan in order to compensate the applicants in full . He also stated that the owners of neighbouring plots of land had informed him that they lacked the funds to pay part of the applicants’ compensation . Some councillors made proposals which would have lowered the value of the applicants’ plot .

On DATE the first CARDINAL applicants received a letter from GPE referring to negotiations which had been conducted with them . The CARDINAL applicants were invited to agree to a plan for the development of the plot . According to the plan , the municipality would acquire part of the plot and transform it into a park . The applicants would be allowed to construct a building with a QUANTITY underground garage . There would be shops on the ground floor and offices on the other floors .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) decided not to appeal in cassation against the decision of ORG . On CARDINAL DATE it informed ORG and ORG , Town Planning and Public Works accordingly and requested them to take the necessary steps to give effect to that decision .

On DATE ORG of Neo Psihiko discussed the outcome of the negotiations with the first CARDINAL applicants . The mayor invited the members of the council not to lose sight of the fact that the municipality risked finding itself in a position where it would be unable to pay full compensation to the CARDINAL applicants for the expropriation of their plot . In the end , the council decided to request the prefecture to expropriate the plot ( decision no . CARDINAL ) . It proposed the creation of a park , an underground garage and a public building . The CARDINAL applicants protested .

On DATE the first CARDINAL applicants requested the Prefect of Eastern Attika formally to revoke decision no . DATE , as he was required to do by the law .

On DATE ORG examined GPE application for judicial review of decision no . MONEY of the Secretary General of ORG . The first CARDINAL applicants , who had intervened in favour of the Secretary General , claimed that this decision did not produce any legal effects because on CARDINAL DATE ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ORG had declared that it had been ipso jure revoked . However , the ORG considered that , the decision of the appeal court notwithstanding , the administration was under an obligation formally to revoke decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL expropriating the plot . As long as this had not happened , decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL could be judicially reviewed . Moreover , the ORG considered that the Secretary General of ORG had illegally ordered GPE to bear on its own the cost of compensating the applicants for the QUANTITY in question . The owners of other neighbouring property were liable as well . ORG , therefore , decided to quash decision no . DATE ( decision no . DATE ) .

On DATE the town planning authorities of ORG asked GPE whether it wished to expropriate the applicants’ plot again and drew its attention to the conditions for doing so . On DATE the town planning authorities informed the municipality that , if it wanted the plot to be expropriated , a decision by the municipal council concerning the necessary funds should be adopted before CARDINAL DATE . On both occasions the town planning authorities informed the municipality that , if it did not take the necessary measures for a fresh expropriation , the prefecture would proceed to the revocation of the first expropriation as it was required to do by law .

On DATE the first CARDINAL applicants applied to the prefecture for a building permit .

On DATE ORG , Town Planning and Public Works informed ORG that , decision no . ORG notwithstanding , the prefecture had to comply with decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG and officially revoke the expropriation decision . The ministry also considered that the amendment of the town plan of CARDINAL DATE amounted to a new expropriation . According to the case - law of ORG , this would be lawful only if there was a serious town - planning need and the money for the compensation was readily available .

On DATE ORG of Neo Psihiko requested ORG to re - issue act no . CARDINAL on the persons liable to pay compensation taking into consideration decision no . TIME of ORG or else to adopt a new decision expropriating the applicants’ plot of land . The municipal council declared that it was ready to pay the compensation required in order for the expropriation to be completed ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the first CARDINAL applicants , with a view to reaching a friendly settlement , applied for a building permit offering , at the same time , to construct at their expense a public building for the municipality .

On DATE the Prefect of Eastern Attika considered that the municipality ’s case for a new expropriation was not convincing and decided to free part of the applicants’ plot for development ( decision no . CARDINAL published in ORG on DATE ) . On DATE GPE applied to ORG for judicial review of this decision . The first CARDINAL applicants intervened in the proceedings in favour of the ORG .

On DATE ORG considered that its previous decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL could not affect the obligation of ORG to comply with decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG of CARDINAL DATE and officially revoked the first expropriation decision . ORG found that ORG had complied with the above - mentioned decision of ORG by issuing decision no . CARDINAL . However , this decision had not taken into consideration the fact that GPE had fully cooperated in the first expropriation procedure . Neither had it taken into consideration the fact that the main reason for the non - completion of the first expropriation procedure had been the dispute which had arisen as to who should have compensated the first CARDINAL applicants . In the light of all the above , the ORG found that the Prefect of ORG decision not to accede to the municipality ’s request for a second expropriation did not contain adequate reasons . ORG , therefore , quashed decision no . CARDINAL of the Prefect of Eastern Attika ( decision no . ORG ) .

On DATE the second applicant requested the Mayor of PERSON to provide him with a certified copy of the municipality ’s budget and of the TIME of the meeting of the municipal council at which the budget had been approved .

On DATE the town planning authorities of ORG , which had taken over the functions of ORG , informed GPE that , since decision no . CARDINAL of the Prefect of Eastern Attika had been quashed , it was still under an obligation to comply with decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG . It also invited the municipality to inform it within DATE whether there existed a serious town - planning need for the expropriation of the applicants’ plot of land and whether there existed sufficient funds in the ORG budget for compensating the applicants . Finally , the prefecture warned the municipality that , in the absence of a prompt reply , it would change the authorised use of the applicants’ plot to development land .

The Mayor of PERSON replied to ORG on DATE requesting that the applicants’ plot should be expropriated for the following reasons . On the one hand , a number of supermarkets and banks had been recently built in the area , which attracted CARDINAL persons and a lot of traffic every day . On the other hand , there were no parks or parking space . As a result , if a new development were authorised , the situation would become intolerable . The mayor referred to the Prefect of LOC decision of CARDINAL DATE according to which the applicants’ plot could only be used as a park and for underground parking . The mayor also informed the prefecture that provision had been made for MONEY in the municipality ’s budget for DATE and an additional sum would be made available in DATE .

On DATE ORG asked the municipality to clarify within DATE whether the sum of MONEY had been earmarked for the expropriation of the applicants’ plot , what was the estimated total cost of the expropriation , whether the additional sum required existed and , if not , which were the sources from which it could be obtained and what were the prospects of obtaining it . The municipality was again threatened with a decision changing the authorised use of the applicants’ land .

On DATE the first CARDINAL applicants invited the ORG to comply with decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG and decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG .

Having received no reply , on DATE the second applicant requested ORG to inform him of the conditions for the development of his plot in PERSON . On DATE ORG informed the second applicant that , according to the decision of the Prefect of LOC of DATE , the plot could only be used as a park and for underground parking . Decision no . CARDINAL of ORG had been quashed by ORG . When the CARDINAL applicants had originally applied for a building permit there were no restrictions on their plot of land . However , on DATE and DATE the prefect of PERSON had decided to suspend the delivery of building permits of the kind requested by the CARDINAL applicants .

On DATE the second applicant applied to the town planning authorities of the prefecture for permission to construct an open - air parking area on his plot . The authorities turned his application down referring , inter alia , to the decision of the Prefect of Eastern Attika of DATE DATE . On DATE the second applicant applied to the town planning authorities for permission to construct an underground garage . On DATE the authorities replied that the garage would be built by the appropriate organ after the conclusion of the expropriation .

Following a further query by the first CARDINAL applicants , on DATE GPE informed them that , according to the decision of ORG of DATE , their plot of land could only be used as a park and for underground parking and that the decision in question had not been revoked .

On DATE the first applicant transferred PERCENT of the plot to the third applicant and PERCENT to the fourth applicant .

On DATE the town planning authorities of ORG informed ORG that the decision of CARDINAL DATE of ORG amounted to an expropriation of the applicants’ plot . However , when the town planning authorities wrote to GPE on DATE , they were not aware of this decision . Following the quashing of decision no . CARDINAL of ORG by ORG , the use of the applicants’ plot is governed by the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The town planning authorities , further to a request by GPE , were in the course of determining those liable to pay compensation because of the expropriation .

According to decision no . CARDINAL of ORG , an expropriation that has been revoked may be re - imposed only if there is a serious town - planning need and the authorities are able to pay appropriate compensation immediately . In DATE ORG issued a circular informing the authorities of this development ( circular no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

According to the case - law of ORG , amendments to town plans must be published in ORG together with a detailed plan . Otherwise they are null and void ( decisions ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .