CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s235C1871 { width:137.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 18429/21 Çağatay YAĞIZ against Türkiye   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21   October 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Jovan Ilievski , President ,   Péter Paczolay,   Juha Lavapuro , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no.   18429/21) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26 March 2021 by a Turkish national, Mr Çağatay Yağız (“the applicant”), who was born in 1990 and lives in Trabzon; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns allegations of ill-treatment suffered by the applicant during his arrest. 2.     On 5 March 2019, at around 4.40 a.m., the applicant was walking in Trabzon when a police car on night patrol passed by. A verbal exchange between the applicant and the police officers escalated into a brawl, following which the officers attempted to stop and arrest the applicant, claiming that he had insulted them and damaged public property by kicking the police car. The applicant resisted arrest by running around and physically pushing both the officers and his parents, who had arrived at the scene from their nearby home. In response to the applicant’s resistance, the officers used pepper spray to subdue him. However, he fled, prompting the officers to chase him. At the end of the pursuit, he fell to the ground together with one of the police officers chasing him, at which point he was handcuffed and arrested. 3.     The applicant was subsequently taken to Tonya State Hospital for a medical examination. The medical report indicated that he was intoxicated with a blood alcohol level of 1.78‰ and had minor injuries treatable with basic medical care. He was then taken to the police station to give his statement and was subsequently released. A medical report drawn up by the Trabzon Forensic Medicine Institute on 14 March 2019 recorded that the applicant had been examined on 7 March 2019. It noted swelling around his right eye area and a minor fracture in part of his lower jaw, and recommended that his x-rays be sent to Karadeniz Technical University Hospital for a clearer assessment of the fractures. The university hospital, in its report of 10   April 2019, confirmed a fracture line in the right side of the applicant’s lower jaw. Two of the police officers who arrested the applicant also obtained medical reports, showing that they had sustained minor injuries treatable with basic medical care. 4.     On the day of the incident, on 5 March 2019, the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers for using disproportionate force which had resulted in his injury. On 28 August 2019 the public prosecutor ordered the Forensic Medicine Institute to issue a definitive medical report concerning the injuries sustained by him. On 9   September 2019 the Forensic Medicine Institute, having examined the previous medical reports drawn up in respect of the applicant, submitted its medical report to the public prosecutor. It noted that the applicant had suffered a jaw fracture that was not life-threatening, nor had it resulted in any permanent functional impairment. The public prosecutor also took statements from the applicant, his parents, the police officers, and other witnesses and ordered CCTV footage to be viewed. 5 .     In his statement to the public prosecutor, the applicant explained that he had been walking back to his home from a birthday party with his friend U.T.L. when the police officers asked them what they were doing. Afterwards, a discussion with the police officers had started, following which they attempted to handcuff the applicant. An altercation had taken place between him and the policemen, and they had used pepper spray when he had told them that they should release him. He had subsequently started to run away until the police officers had caught him and pushed him to the ground, at which point he had hit his head. He further stated that after being apprehended by the police, he had been struck on his back while lying face down. 6.     In their statements the three police officers involved in the incident indicated that when they had first seen him, the applicant had been walking in a manner that was blocking the road. After a while, he had come close to the police car, telling them not to come to his neighbourhood and insulting them. As the applicant was heavily built and had been behaving aggressively, they had gone to the police station to request reinforcements. When they had returned, the applicant had kicked the police vehicle. They had stepped out of the vehicle, at which point the applicant’s parents, who had heard the commotion, had also come to the scene and tried to calm the applicant. However, he had continued with insults and aggressive behaviour. Subsequently, one of the police officers had used pepper spray to subdue his resistance, following which the applicant had started running away. When they had caught him, he had kept on resisting his arrest, prompting a scuffle that resulted in his falling to the ground along with another police officer. Once they had handcuffed and arrested the applicant, they had taken him to the State hospital for a medical examination. 7 .     The public prosecutor also questioned other witnesses, including the applicant’s parents, his friend U.T.L., a passer-by and two watchmen ( mahalle bekçisi ). His parents stated that they had tried to take him back home as he had been drunk and barely able to stand. The police officers had sprayed pepper gas as they could not keep hold of him, at which point he had started running around. The officers had then chased and handcuffed him. The applicant’s friend U.T.L., who was walking together with him at the time of the events, stated that the applicant had started having an argument with the police officers after they had asked the two of them what they were doing in the street. The public prosecutor examined both the CCTV analysis report and the CCTV footage itself which showed that the applicant had behaved aggressively towards the police officers by pushing them multiple times and that he had kicked the police car and resisted arrest. 8.     On 14 January 2020 the Tonya public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute the police officers. Relying on the medical reports and statements of the applicant, the police officers, and the witnesses, as well as the CCTV analysis report alongside the CCTV footage, the public prosecutor stated that the police officers had acted in accordance with section 16 of the Law on the powers and duties of the police (Law no. 2559), which authorises the officers’ use of force, to the extent necessary and proportionate, to overcome an individual’s resistance encountered by them in the performance of their duties. Based on the CCTV footage of the incident in question, the prosecutor found that the police officers’ use of force was necessary and proportionate to the resistance put up by the applicant. 9.     On 31 January 2020 the Trabzon Magistrates’ Court dismissed the applicant’s objection to this decision, stating that it was in accordance with the law and procedure. 10.     On 3 September 2020 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint concerning the prohibition of ill-treatment as being manifestly ill-founded. This decision was notified to the applicant on 30   September 2020. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention 11.     The applicant alleged that the police officers’ use of force while apprehending him had been disproportionate and that the investigation into the matter had been ineffective, in violation of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention. Substantive aspect of the complaint 12.     The general principles concerning allegations of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention notably where a person is confronted with law ‑ enforcement officers are summarised in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR   2015). The Court reiterates that it has accepted some form of use of force on the part of police officers as justified where there is physical resistance or a risk of violent conduct on the part of the individuals being checked, provided that the force used in such situations is proportionate to the aim pursued (see, among other authorities, Perrillat ‑ Bottonet v. Switzerland , no. 66773/13, §§ 40-41, 20   November 2014, and the cases cited therein). Any recourse to physical force in that context which has not been made strictly necessary by the individual’s own conduct diminishes human dignity and is, in principle, an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Bouyid , § 88, and Perrillat-Bottonet , § 40, both cited above). 13.     The Court notes that the applicant accepted that a physical altercation had occurred between him and the police officers when they had tried to arrest him. He also admitted that he had started running away from the police officers, but maintained that he had not intended to flee but to avoid the effects of the pepper spray. 14.     The Court further notes that the statements of the witnesses heard by the public prosecutor in the course of the investigation concurred that the applicant had appeared to be drunk at the time of the events. They confirmed that the applicant had started running away from the police officers (see   paragraph   7 above). The CCTV footage also pointed to the fact that the applicant behaved aggressively towards the officers who attempted to arrest him, and the CCTV analysis report noted that he kicked the police car and pushed the police officers on multiple occasions (see paragraph 7 above). 15.     These factors are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the police officers were faced with a risk of violence from the applicant. Accordingly, the use of means of coercion, such as the use of pepper spray and physical force to restrain the applicant, was justified in principle (compare Caloc v   France , no. 33951/96, §§ 100-01, ECHR 2000-IX; Milan v.   France , no.   7549/03, §§ 59-65, 24 January 2008; and Sarigiannis v.   Italy , no.   14569/05, §   61, 5 April 2011). Whether this use of force was proportionate to subdue the applicant’s resistance remains to be examined. 16.     The Court finds that the injuries identified in the medical report were consistent with the force used by the police officers. While the applicant alleged that a police officer had hit him in the back following his fall, the medical report did not indicate any conclusions to that effect and only showed a jaw fracture, and minor injuries to his right arm and right hand. The Court finds that those injuries appear to have been caused by the applicant’s falling, together with one of the police officers, to the ground as the officers attempted to catch him. 17.     The Court observes that there exists no evidence of injuries which would allow it to conclude that the police officers used an excessive amount of force while arresting the applicant. Accordingly, it considers that the use of force by the police officers was proportionate to the resistance put up by him. 18.     Accordingly, the applicant’s complaint under the substantive limb of Article   3 of the Convention must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded. Procedural aspect of the complaint 19.     The applicant alleged that the investigation into the incident had not been effective, as the public prosecutor had not requested an independent expert report regarding the CCTV footage, and that the CCTV analysis report relied on by the public prosecutor in her decision not to prosecute had been drawn up by colleagues of the relevant police officers. 20.     The general principles regarding the requirement under Article 3 of an effective official investigation where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police are set out, inter alia , in Bouyid (cited above, §§   114-23). 21.     The Court notes that following the applicant’s complaint, the Tonya public prosecutor’s office immediately initiated a criminal investigation. It took statements from the applicant, as the complainant; the three police officers who were involved in the event, as suspects; and the two watchmen, the applicant’s parents, his friend who was walking with him that night and a passer-by, as witnesses. The Court observes that the public prosecutor not only relied on the CCTV analysis report drawn up by the police, but also examined the camera footage herself (see paragraph 7 above). 22.     It is true that the CCTV analysis report was drawn up by police officers. However, given that the public prosecutor had also examined the footage (and considering the lack of any submissions by the applicant alleging a lack of independence of the prosecutor), the fact that the CCTV analysis report was drawn up by police officers and the lack of an independent expert report regarding the footage cannot be said to have adversely affected the independence of the investigation. 23.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the applicant’s complaint under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded. It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 20 November 2025.     Dorothee von Arnim   Jovan Ilievski   Deputy Registrar   President