CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 février 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 116 February 2009 İpek and Others v. Turkey - 17019/02 Judgment 3.2.2009 [Section II] Article 5 Article 5-3 Brought promptly before judge or other officer Minors detained for three days and nine hours before being brought before a judge: violation   Facts : At around 1.20 a.m. on 1 December 2001 the police came to the   second applicant’s house and arrested him on suspicion   of being a member of an illegal terrorist organisation. The police   searched the house and also arrested the first and the third applicants, who happened to be there at the time,   in order to establish any link they might have with the   organisation.   All three applicants were 16 years of age at the time of the arrest. Two days later   the applicants were questioned by the police without benefiting from the assistance of a lawyer since the accusations against them concerned offences within the jurisdiction of the state security courts. On the same day, the prosecutor prolonged their detention for another two days. According to the police records, the applicants’ custody ended   at 10.40 a.m. on 4   December 2001. They were then taken for a medical examination and ultimately brought before the competent State Security Court, which remanded them in custody. Law : Article 5   §   1   (c) – In order for an arrest on reasonable suspicion to be justified,   Article 5   §   1   (c) required   the existence of   facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the arrested person might have actually committed an offence. As to the second applicant, he was arrested in the course of a police investigation into an illegal terrorist organisation. He was suspected of being a member of that organisation and of having conducted activities on its behalf. In such circumstances, the suspicion against the second applicant had reached the level required by Article 5   §   1   (c), since the purpose of his arrest had been to confirm or dispel suspicions of his involvement with the illegal organisation. However, the first and third applicants were arrested merely because they were at the second applicant’s house at the time of his arrest. In the absence of any information to the contrary, the Court considered that, at the time of their arrest, they had not been detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence. Conclusion : no violation in respect of the second applicant, violation in respect of the first and third applicants (unanimously). Article 5   §   3 – Even though the investigation of terrorist offences undoubtedly presented the authorities with particular problems, they were not given unrestricted power under Article 5 to arrest suspects for questioning free from effective control by the domestic courts or, ultimately, the Court. Pursuant to the latter’s well-established practice, the strict time constraint imposed for detention without judicial control amounted to a maximum of four days. However, in the applicants’ case, the Court attached great importance to the fact that they were minors and that they were detained without any procedural safeguards, such as the assistance of a lawyer, against arbitrary acts by the State authorities. The only investigative measure undertaken during the three days and nine hours of their detention was their questioning some two days after their arrest and a day before they were brought before a judge. No other argument submitted by the Government was sufficient to justify the applicants’ detention without judicial control for more than three days, even in the context of a terrorist organisation. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court further found violations of Article 5   §§   4 and 5. Article 41 – EUR 1,500 to the first and the third applicants, EUR 1,000 to the second applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes