This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. HANSEN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Hansen v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Sir Nicolas BRATZA, President, Mr M. FISCHBACH, Mr J. CASADEVALL, Mr R. MARUSTE, Mr L. GARLICKI, Mrs E. FURA-SANDSTRÖM, judges, Mr F. GÖLCÜKLÜ, ad hoc judge, and Mr M. O’BOYLE, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2001 and on 3 September 2003, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 36141/97) 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...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF SOPHIA GUÐRÚN HANSEN v. TURKEY (Application no. 36141/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 September 2003 FINAL 23/12/2003 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
HANSEN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Hansen v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Sir Nicolas BRATZA, President, Mr M. FISCHBACH, Mr J. CASADEVALL, Mr R. MARUSTE, Mr L. GARLICKI, Mrs E. FURA-SANDSTRÖM, judges, Mr F. GÖLCÜKLÜ, ad hoc judge, and Mr M. O’BOYLE, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2001 and on 3 September 2003, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 36141/97) 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 an Icelandic national, Ms Sophia Guðrún Hansen (“the applicant”), on 14 April 1997. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr H. Kaplan, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. 3. The applicant alleged, inter alia, that the Turkish authorities had failed effectively to enforce her right of access to her children in accordance with their positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention. She further alleged that she had been deprived of her right to see her children as a result of discrimination, in particular on the ground that she was a Catholic and of Icelandic nationality. 4. The Commission decided on 27 May 1998 to bring the applicant’s complaints concerning her right to respect for her family life and discrimination on the ground of her nationality and religion to the notice of the respondent Government, in accordance with Rule 48 § 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure. 5. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 6. The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that
2 HANSEN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. Mr R. Türmen, the judge elected in respect of Turkey, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr F. Gölcüklü to sit as an ad hoc judge in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 7. By a decision of 19 June 2001, the Court declared the application admissible. 8. The applicant and the Government each...