Opuz v Turkey [2009]

1. Facts:

• Opuz v. Turkey involved severe domestic violence inflicted by the ex-husband, Mr. Opuz, against his former wife, Nahide, and her mother.

• Incidents of Abuse:

• On one occasion, Mr. Opuz stabbed Nahide, leading to her hospitalisation.

• On another occasion, he deliberately ran down Nahide and her mother with a car.

• Despite Nahide and her mother’s repeated pleas to the Turkish authorities and reports indicating their lives were in danger, the authorities took minimal action. Mr. Opuz was temporarily detained but quickly released, and the authorities failed to provide significant protection.

• Eventually, Mr. Opuz escalated the violence by shooting and killing Nahide’s mother. He was charged with murder following this fatal attack.

2. Outcome:

• The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the Turkish government had violated several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

• Article 2: The government failed to safeguard the life of Nahide’s mother, despite being aware of the threats and previous attacks. The lethal attack was deemed foreseeable, and the lack of effective action amounted to a failure to protect life.

• Article 3: The court acknowledged that Mrs. Opuz was subjected to severe threats and violence. The failure of the Turkish authorities to act contributed to a sense of being under government-sanctioned violence.

• Article 14: Article 14, in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3, highlighted that the general and discriminatory passivity of the Turkish judiciary created an environment conducive to domestic violence. The court found that the discriminatory attitudes of the authorities exacerbated the situation.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Recognition of Gender-Based Discrimination: This case marked the first time the ECtHR concluded that a state’s failure to effectively address domestic violence could be considered a form of gender-based discrimination. The court emphasised that the failure to protect victims of domestic violence constitutes a violation of gender equality obligations under the Convention.

• State Responsibility and Effective Protection: The ruling underscored the state’s responsibility to protect individuals from domestic violence and the need for effective legal and protective measures. The case highlighted that insufficient action by state authorities in the face of domestic violence breaches their obligation to uphold rights equally for all individuals.

• Discriminatory Attitudes: The court criticised the widespread discriminatory attitudes within Turkish authorities, noting that such attitudes fostered a climate where domestic violence was not adequately addressed. The case emphasised the need for systemic changes in how authorities approach and respond to domestic violence.

• Influence on International Standards: The ruling in Opuz v. Turkey influenced international legal standards and highlighted the need for comprehensive legal frameworks to protect victims of domestic violence. It contributed to the development of international conventions, such as the Istanbul Convention.

• Istanbul Convention: The Istanbul Convention, ratified by the UK in November 2022, addresses domestic violence as a gender-based phenomenon but acknowledges that it affects individuals regardless of gender. It places gender and structural inequality at the core of its framework, aiming to combat domestic violence through systemic legal and policy measures.

• Mandy Burton’s Analysis: Legal scholar Mandy Burton noted that Opuz v. Turkey was pivotal in recognising the state's failure to address domestic violence as a form of gender-based discrimination, establishing a precedent for holding states accountable for their obligations to protect victims and uphold gender equality.