ERGÜN v. TURKEY
Inadmissible
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani
1. The applicants, Mr Osman Ergün and Ms Havva Ergün, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1956 and 1965 respectively and live in Ankara. They were represented before the Court by Mr K. Gül, a lawyer practising in Samsun. 2. 3. On 7 September 2000 the applicants’ son, A.E., joined the army to perform his compulsory military service. The medical report drawn up by the Gülhane Military Academy prior to his conscription stated that there were no contraindications to his conscription. However, he was known to be suffering from a severe dermatological disease since 1996. 4. On 10 October 2000 the applicants’ son’s disease deteriorated, and he was transferred to the Ege University Hospital. He died on 19 January 2001. 5. On 26 September 2001 the applicants initiated proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court and requested pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation. In their petition, the applicants each claimed 1,000 Turkish Liras (TRY) in respect of pecuniary damages. For nonpecuniary damages, they requested TRY 150,000 for the mother and TRY 125,000 for the father. 6. On 3 April 2002 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the case on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. 7. Following a rectification request, the Supreme Military Administrative Court decided to examine the merits of the case in a decision dated 2 September 2002. 8. Having held a public hearing on 13 November 2002 and taken into account an expert report dated 19 March 2003, the Supreme Military Administrative Court delivered its judgment on 5 April 2005. It ruled in favour of the applicants and awarded each of them TRY 1,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 2,450 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 9. On 11 July 2005 the applicants initiated proceedings and asked for additional compensation in respect of their pecuniary damage, arguing that their claim for additional compensation had not been taken into account in the judgment of the Supreme Military Administrative Court dated 5 April 2005. 10. On 21 July 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the case for additional compensation in respect of pecuniary damages on the basis of the failure to bring the claim within the statutory time-limit. The court considered the applicants’ claim to be an application to have the initial amount amended (ıslah) and dismissed it for being out of time. 11. On 16 November 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the rectification request of the applicants. 12. In the meantime, on 18 November 2002 the applicants had applied to the General Directorate of Pension Funds. They requested a pension, claiming that their son had died during his military service and because of his death the administration was required to pay a pension under domestic law. 13. On 21 January 2003 the General Directorate of Pension Funds rejected the applicants’ request for a pension on the ground that the death of the applicants’ son was not the consequence of his military service. 14. On 6 January 2004 the applicants lodged an application with the Supreme Military Administrative Court with a request for a pension. 15. On 27 January 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ request on the ground that the applicants’ son had died due to an illness he had had before joining the army, and it had a genetic basis. Also, the applicants had failed to prove that they fulfilled the requirements for a pension since no document showing that the applicants were dependent or disabled had been provided. Thus, the Supreme Military Administrative Court found that the applicants’ request did not have any legal ground and rejected the application.