CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 octobre 2006

.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 } .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. 90 October 2006 Okkalı v. Turkey - 52067/99 Judgment 17.10.2006 [Section II] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Minimum sentences imposed and suspended for persons found guilty of ill-treating a minor: violation   Facts : The applicant, a twelve-year-old boy, was subjected to ill-treatment at police headquarters. The criminal complaint which he lodged resulted in minimal, suspended, sentences for the police officers concerned. The applicant’s action for damages was declared inadmissible as time-barred. Law : As a minor, the applicant should have enjoyed enhanced protection in the proceedings, but the authorities had not taken his particular vulnerability into account. In addition, the proceedings had resulted in impunity for the persons responsible for acts incompatible with the absolute prohibition laid down in Article 3. In applying and interpreting the domestic legislation, the judges had used their power of discretion to lessen the consequences of an extremely serious unlawful act rather than to show that such acts could in no way be tolerated. The criminal-law system, as applied in the applicant’s case, could have no dissuasive effect capable of ensuring the effective prevention of unlawful acts of that kind. The criminal proceedings, in view of their outcome, had failed to provide appropriate redress for an infringement of the principle enshrined in Article 3.   Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded EUR 19,000 for non-pecuniary damage and a specified sum for costs and expenses.   © 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