VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHAK #2040 2211446
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 091446Z AUG 07
FM AMEMBASSY ANKARA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3328
INFO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 3182
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC

UNCLAS ANKARA 002040 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SECSTATE FOR L/DL - CAROL LIGHT, DS/DSS/IP, DS/PSP/PSD, 
OBO/PE/SM, L/LM, EUR-IO EX, EUR/SA; DOJ/OFL FOR ROBERT 
HOLLIS; LONDON FOR DOJ REPRESENTATIVE - DONNA C, MAIZEL; 
EUR/EX FOR JOEL DANIES 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ASEC ABLD AMGT TU
SUBJECT: TURKISH COURT CALLS FOR REMOVAL OF EMBASSY 
EXTERNAL BOLLARD LINE 
 
REF: A. 2004 ANKARA 05172 
 
     ¶B. 2004 STATE 37111 
     ¶C. 2004 ANKARA 506 
 
 ¶1.  SUMMARY:  Embassy's perimeter is enhanced with a line of 
concrete bollards along the sidewalk.  In response to civil 
litigation, an administrative court in Ankara has ruled that 
the bollards must be removed and the Court is insisting the 
Municipality take immediate steps to comply.  We have 
convinced the MFA to intervene with the Municipal authorities 
to forestall immediate action, and have expressed a 
willingness to engage in a consultative process with the 
Municipality, the Justice Ministry and the MFA.  END SUMMARY 
 
¶2.  In 2004 Embassy constructed a bollard line around much of 
the chancery compound perimeter, in the aftermath of the 2003 
Istanbul bombings.  This action was undertaken with full GOT 
and Municipal approval (reftels). A Turkish citizen then 
filed a lawsuit against the Ankara municipal government in 
2005, claiming the bollards were an impediment to pedestrian 
traffic and caused visual pollution.  In December 2005 the 
12th Administrative Court of Ankara decided in favor of the 
plaintiff and ordered the Ankara municipal government to 
remove the bollards.  The decision was appealed to the 8th 
Council of State Court, who decreed in December 2006 that the 
12th Administrative Court's decision should not be 
implemented and a panel of experts should be convened to 
review the original claims.  Though no such panel has yet 
been convened, the 12th Administrative Court is now demanding 
that the Ankara city government immediately move ahead with 
removal of the bollards, in spite of the appeal. 
 
¶3.  On July 23, 2007, a team from the Ankara Municipality 
appeared outside the Embassy to begin removal of the bollards 
along one street (Ataturk Boulevard).  Upon a verbal appeal 
from the Embassy, the team's manager agreed to delay 
implementation of his orders.  However, on August 3, Embassy 
was warned by municipal officials that workers might appear 
early the following week to begin removal work on the bollard 
line.  Embassy responded with a series of conversations with 
MFA and Municipality officials outlining security concerns, 
emphasizing MFA's responsibilities in dealing effectively 
with the issue, and calling upon them to ensure that 
"destruction" work did not ensue. 
 
In an August 6 meeting with MFA Under Secretary (M 
equivalent) Urdogan, Charge reiterated Embassy position and 
proposed that a consultative mechanism or working group be 
established to address the issue, with participation from 
MFA, the municipality, Justice Ministry and the Embassy. 
Urdogan responded positively to the proposal, and expressed a 
desire to work with Embassy and municipality to resolve 
matters, while repeating MFA's view that the court ruling and 
demands could not be ignored. 
 
¶4.  We are following up with MFA and Ankara Municipality to 
move ahead on proposed working group.  Our principal 
objective will be to maintain the bollard line as currently 
configured.  However, we may also proceed with a compromise 
arrangement for the removal of the horizontal steel 
connectors between the bollards, as a way to comply with the 
ruling while maintaining effective security for Embassy. 
 
Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/ankara/ 
 
MCELDOWNEY