CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 octobre 2010

.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. 134 October 2010 Umar Karatepe v. Turkey - 20502/05 Judgment 12.10.2010 [Section II] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Positive obligations Failure to ensure appropriate medical treatment for person injured in police custody: violation   Facts – In 2003 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody with about thirty other people for having taken part in a demonstration. On the way to a court hearing he was allegedly struck by a police officer and sustained a cranial traumatism. He was taken to a hospital neurology ward, but the doctors refused to carry out the recommended tomography because the applicant was unable to pay for it. He was then taken back to the police station and released. The applicant and the public prosecutor brought actions against the police, but to no avail. Lastly, the applicant lodged a complaint against the head doctor at the hospital for breach of duty, but the doctor was acquitted. Law – Article 3 (substantive aspect) (a)     The injury – That the applicant had been injured by the police while in their custody was not in dispute. The medical report drawn up shortly afterwards showed that the injury sustained attained the minimum level of severity required to bring it within the scope of Article   3. In any event there had been no need for the police to use such force against the applicant; they could have used other means to keep him under control. In fact, there was no evidence that the applicant had physically threatened the police or been so aggressive that it had been necessary to subdue him by force. TheGovernment had failed to show that the force used had been justified and had not been excessive. The force used had been at the origin of the applicant’s injury and had caused him suffering that amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). (b)     Medical treatment – The applicant’s transfer to the neurology ward for further examination was a medically significant step. By insisting that the applicant pay for the procedure, the head doctor at the hospital had prevented him from receiving proper treatment. It had been the authorities’ duty to make sure the applicant received the necessary medical treatment while he was in their care. Lastly, after the applicant was taken back to the police station and released, neither the police nor the public prosecutor had shown any concern about the possible consequences of his injury for the applicant’s health. The fact that the applicant had not received proper medical treatment for head injuries sustained while in police custody because he could not pay the corresponding fees had robbed him of his dignity. In treating him as they had, the medical and judicial authorities had failed in their positive obligation under Article   3. The applicant had been subjected to considerable hardship that had caused him anxiety and suffering beyond that inevitably associated with any deprivation of liberty. The authorities’ failure to provide proper medical treatment amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   1   (c) because the applicant’s custody had not been extended in conformity with the relevant domestic law. Article 41: EUR 12,000 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