Individual Application

The Facts

The applicant complained that while she was serving as a neighbourhood representative during the organisation of a political party congress, she had been threatened in absentia by M.K. and R.T., members of the same political party. Upon the request of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office for the adoption of a preventive measure pursuant to Law no. 6284 on Protecting Family and Preventing Violence against Women, the family court ruled for the implementation of a measure ordering M.K. and R.T. to refrain from threatening the applicant with violence, from engaging in insulting, humiliating or degrading language or behaviour towards the applicant, and from approaching to the applicant’s residence, school or workplace. The decision further underlined that the measure would be in effect for three months and that non-compliance with the measure would result in preventive imprisonment. M.K. and R.T. expressed that they had not threatened the applicant and claimed that the conditions for ordering an interim measure had not been constituted. Having examined the appeal, the Family Court (appeal authority) held that the court’s decision be quashed with final effect.

The Applicants’ Allegations

The applicant maintained that her right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence had been violated due to dismissal of her request for a preventive measure on the grounds of alleged threat against her.

The Court’s Assessment

In the individual application form, the applicant stated that the threats directed against her had been merely based on the very fact that she was a woman, that the threats had constituted violence against women and that almost all of the statements such as “If you don’t do it, this will be a bloodbath” were uttered by men. In addition, upon the applicant’s complaint, an indictment was served against the persons involved, accusing them of having committed the offence of threat.

Law no. 6284 and the relevant international law explicitly acknowledge that violence against women consists of all forms of gender-based violence. Nevertheless, the family court held that the interim measure be lifted on the grounds that the application had not been related to domestic violence or stalking, but failed to provide any concrete explanation, assessment or grounds as to whether the threats made by the male persons against the applicant, who is a woman, were due to her sex and whether the act constituted a violence against women. In this regard, it is evident that the approach of the family court, which leads to the conclusion that circumstances other than domestic violence and stalking, or all acts of violence against women committed in the non-domestic context, should be excluded from the scope of Law no. 6284, is in breach of constitutional safeguards.

Accordingly, the Court has concluded that the final decision failed to provide relevant and sufficient grounds as regards the applicant’s right to the protection of her corporeal and spiritual existence. Although the applicant stated that she was threatened due to her sex, it has been concluded that the incumbent court had not acted in accordance with its positive obligations to adopt certain measures to protect the applicant as a victim of violence.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence.