CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 janvier 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 115 January 2009 Samüt Karabulut v. Turkey - 16999/04 Judgment 27.1.2009 [Section II] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Use of excessive force by police to break up a peaceful demonstration: violation   Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Police intervention to break up a peaceful demonstration that had not been notified to the authorities: violation   Facts : The applicant took part with 30-35 other people in a peaceful demonstration organised in Istanbul by a Turkish human-rights association to protest against Israeli operations in Palestine. The organisers had not given the authorities prior notification of the demonstration as they were required to do by law (Article 10 of Law no. 2911) and were asked repeatedly by the police to disperse. Although most of the demonstrators complied with the police's request almost immediately, the applicant intervened verbally when he saw a fellow demonstrator being arrested. In allegations that were contested by the Government, he said that he was then arrested by 5 or 6 officers who punched and kicked him and also hit him on the head and back with a truncheon. The applicant and the other arrested demonstrator were taken to the police station before being released about an hour and a half later. The police took the applicant to see a doctor that evening and he saw a forensic doctor the following day. Both noted swelling to the head. Following a complaint by the applicant, the public prosecutor found that the police had not used excessive force to effect the arrest. That decision was upheld by the courts. Law : Article 3 – There was no evidence in the contemporaneous medical reports to support the applicant's allegations that he had been subjected to a brutal attack by the arresting officers. Had the applicant wished to challenge the veracity of those reports, he could have obtained a further report from a doctor of his choice. The findings of the medical reports were, however, consistent with his having been hit on the head and the Government had not denied the use of force during the arrest. Accordingly, the burden of proof was on the Government to show that the force used was indispensable and not excessive. In the absence of evidence suggesting that the police had encountered violent or active physical resistance by the applicant during the arrest which would explain the injury and in particular its location, the Government had failed to discharge that burden. Conclusion : violation (five votes to two). Article 11 – The police intervention was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting public safety. In the absence of prior notification, the demonstration was unlawful. However, the unlawfulness of the demonstration did not per se justify an infringement of freedom of assembly and regulations in this sphere were not to be used as a hidden obstacle to the exercise of that freedom. The Government had not shown that the demonstrators represented a danger to public order or public safety and, in the absence of violence on their part, the authorities were expected to show a degree of tolerance. The demonstrators had in fact dispersed fairly quickly after being prompted by the police and the applicant had thus been forced to leave the scene without being given sufficient time to manifest his views. The police's intervention was therefore disproportionate. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 3,000 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