Osman Nuri Taşçı
person- Image
- Sex
- Male
- Civil status
- Married
- Occupation
- Craftsman
- Event description
Per inadmissibility ruling delivered by the ECHR on 9th October 2012, Osman Nuri Taşçı was a shopkeeper living in the Oltu district of Erzurum. He was last seen being escorted into a white car by two men in front of his shop on 4th July 1987. He has not been seen or heard from, nor have his bodily remains been discovered.
During the investigation which was launched shortly later by the Oltu Police Station upon Taşçı’s son’s application, it was discovered that the men driving the car in which Taşçı was last seen, worked for the National Intelligence Service (MIT). The police was not allowed by the MIT to interrogate the men in question until 2003, which proved fruitless.
In 2008, the prosecution’s investigation was dropped due to statute of limitations.
In 2010, the family applied to the ECHR, which found the case inadmissible because the six-month time limit had run out.
- Geolocation
Latitude: 40.545963
Longitude: 41.995634
- Geolocation
- City
- Erzurum
- District
- Oltu
- Date of disappearance
- Jul 4, 1987
- Year of disappearance
- 1987
- Age at the time of disappearance
- HAH/act/244
- Status of the victim
- Still missing
- Type of source material
- ECHR decision
- Decision by the prosecution office
- Decision of non-prosecution due to statute of limitations
- Verdict of ECHR
- Non-compliance with the six-month time limit
- Summary of the legal proceedings
During the investigation which was launched shortly later by the Oltu Police Station upon Taşçı’s son’s application, it was discovered that the men driving the car in which Taşçı was last seen, worked for the National Intelligence Service (MIT). The police was not allowed by the MIT to interrogate the men in question until 2003. The investigation regarding MIT members was dropped in 2004 due to lack of evidence. The investigation into Taşçı’s disappearance was dismissed in 2008 as well as the appeal lodged by the family shortly later.
In 2010, the family applied to the ECHR, which found the case inadmissible because the six-month time limit had run out.