The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Nicolas Bratza, President, Giovanni Bonello, Rıza Türmen, Stanislav Pavlovschi, David Thór Björgvinsson, Ján Šikuta, Päivi Hirvelä, judges and Fatoş Aracı Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 January 2001, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Seyithan Aydın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Izmir. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Çetinkaya and Mr A. Terece, lawyers practising in Izmir. The Turkish Government...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 71998/01 by Seyithan AYDIN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Nicolas Bratza, President, Giovanni Bonello, Rıza Türmen, Stanislav Pavlovschi, David Thór Björgvinsson, Ján Šikuta, Päivi Hirvelä, judges and Fatoş Aracı Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 January 2001, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Seyithan Aydın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Izmir. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Çetinkaya and Mr A. Terece, lawyers practising in Izmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
2 AYDIN v. TURKEY DECISION A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1. The armed attack against the applicant and the investigation into the incident 3. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application the applicant was working as a health officer in Batman. 4. On 4 February 1992 he was shot at and seriously injured in an attack by two men in his house in Batman. The three bullets fired by one of the assailants entered the applicant’s stomach and seriously injured him. 5. The applicant was immediately taken to a hospital by his neighbours and their guest, F.C., who was a police officer. The operation to remove the bullets from the applicant’s body was performed in the intensive care unit of the Diyarbakır Hospital since his injuries were life-threatening. He spent twenty days in the hospital. 6. On the same day the police officers prepared a sketch-map of the scene of the incident which described the interior of the house and location of the spent cartridges. They also prepared an incident report in which they noted their findings at the scene of the incident as well as a protocol stating that they had recovered six cartridges and three bullets found at the scene. The police officers took statements from the persons who had taken the applicant to the hospital. The witnesses G.K., E.K. and Ö.F.C. stated that they had heard gunfire and had gone to the applicant’s flat and had found him injured. They then took him to the hospital. Another witness, F.C. stated that the applicant had described the perpetrators and had told him that they were members of an illegal terrorist organisation, the Hizbullah. The witness H.Y. stated he had gone to help the applicant following the assault. He had ...