CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 décembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   914 13.12.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ESER CEYLAN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Eser Ceylan v. Turkey (application no. 14166/02 ).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the injuries inflicted on the applicant during her arrest.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Eser Ceylan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Ankara.   The case concerns the ill-treatment of the applicant by the police.   On 12 December 2000 an unauthorised demonstration in Kızılay, Ankara, against F Type prisons turned into a violent clash between some of the participants, a group of Turkish nationalists and the security forces. The demonstrators damaged cars and a shop, and eight police officers were injured.   The applicant claimed that she was on her way to her sister’s law office when she saw armoured police vehicles firing high pressure water jets and a group of people throwing stones. She went into the ÖDP (Liberty and Solidarity Party) building for self-protection.   Subsequently police officers entered the ÖDP building and arrested around 50 people, including the applicant. During the arrest, she claimed that she was insulted and beaten, hit with truncheons on her legs and sexually harassed by a police officer who also punched her in the right eye.   The same day she was examined by a forensic doctor who noted that she had a bruise on her head, right eye, and cheek, a laceration on her lip and 3-4 cm abrasions on her body. She was declared unfit to work for seven days.   The same day, along with 70 other people, she appeared before Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance charged with taking part in an unauthorised demonstration. She reiterated that she had been beaten and sexually harassed during her arrest.   Ankara Public Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation into the events in question after being informed by the trial judge that most of the defendants in the case had complained of ill-treatment by the security forces. However, on 30 January 2001 the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officers who had been on duty on the ground that the force used by the security forces had not been excessive and that the injuries sustained by the complainants had been a result of the clash between the police and demonstrators. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   The Ministry of the Interior lodged an action for compensation against the applicant and the other co-accused and requested the reimbursement of the amount of compensation paid to the injured police officers. Those proceedings are apparently still pending.   On 22 January 2004 the applicant was acquitted for lack of evidence.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 October 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that the treatment to which she had been subjected during her arrest amounted to torture and inhuman treatment. She further complained that there had been no adequate investigation into the circumstances surrounding the incident relying on Article   3, (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court considered that the medical findings matched at least the applicant’s allegations of having been punched in the right eye. It also found her injuries to be sufficiently serious to bring them within the scope of Article 3. The Turkish Government had not denied that her injuries resulted from the use of force by the State authorities in the performance of their duties. They had, however, stressed the mitigating circumstances surrounding the incident.   The Court noted that it was undisputed that the applicant was arrested at the ÖDP building and not during the demonstration where there were violent clashes between various parties. She was also acquitted of the charges of participating in an unauthorised demonstration. She was not therefore injured in the course of a random and widespread demonstration which might have given rise to unexpected developments to which the police officers had to react without prior preparation. It was therefore for the Government to demonstrate with convincing arguments that the use of force, which resulted in her injuries, was not excessive.   However, the Government merely stated that force had to be used against the demonstrators, including the applicant, without providing any explanation or documentation which could shed light on the circumstances which had led the police to use force when dealing with the applicant and the exact nature of the force used against her. There was no indication in the case file that she could have sustained the injuries noted in her medical reports during the demonstration or that police had had to use force during her arrest because they had encountered violent or active resistance on her part. The Court therefore found that the Government had failed to provide convincing or credible arguments which would have provided a basis to explain or to justify the degree of force used against the applicant, whose injuries were corroborated by medical reports. The Court therefore concluded that the force used against the applicant during her arrest was excessive and that Turkey was responsible for those injuries, in violation of Article 3.   The Court further found that there was no need to examine separately the applicant’s remaining complaint under Article 3 concerning the investigation into her allegations.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.