CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 mars 2007

.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. 95 July 2012 Erdoğan Yağız v. Turkey - 27473/02 Judgment 6.3.2007 [Section II] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Applicant with no criminal record developed irreversible psychopathological disorders after being arrested for questioning and forced to wear handcuffs at his place of work and in front of his family and neighbours: violation   Facts : The applicant, who had been employed as a doctor by the Istanbul security police for 15 years, was arrested by police officers in the car-park outside his workplace. He was handcuffed in public and subsequently exposed in handcuffs in front of his family and neighbours when searches were carried out at his home and place of work. He was then held in police custody at his workplace, where staff could see him handcuffed, but was not informed of the charges against him. Two days after his release a psychiatrist diagnosed him as suffering from traumatic shock and certified him unfit for work for 20 days. His sick leave was extended several times on account of acute depression. The applicant filed a complaint and was informed that he had been interrogated in connection with a criminal investigation because of his relations with suspects. He was suspended from his duties until the close of the criminal investigation. The prosecuting authorities discontinued the case against the applicant. He was reinstated in his post but was unable to work on account of aggravated psychosomatic symptoms. He was retired early on health grounds and has been treated several times in a hospital neuropsychiatry department. Law : Article 3 – The applicant had had no history of psychopathology before being taken into police custody and there was no material in the file to suggest the existence of psychosomatic instability. He had explained in detail the humiliation that he had felt on being exposed wearing handcuffs publicly, at work in front of staff who had been his patients and around his home. In his case it could be reasonably assumed that there was a causal link between the treatment in question and the beginning of his psychopathological problems, which had been diagnosed two days after his release (contrast Raninen v. Finland , 1997). Successive medical reports had confirmed the fact that the applicant had sustained serious trauma following his period in police custody. He had particularly felt humiliated by his exposure to staff who had been his patients. His mental state had been irreversibly marked by the ordeal. Moreover, on the date of his arrest, the applicant did not have a record that might have led to fears for security and there was no evidence that he represented a danger for himself or for others or that he had committed criminal acts or acts of self-destruction or violence against others. In particular the Government had given no explanation to justify the need for handcuffs in the present case. In conclusion, the fact of exposing the applicant to public view wearing handcuffs at the time of his arrest and during the searches had been intended to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and possibly breaking his moral resistance. In the particular circumstances of the case, the obligation to wear handcuffs had constituted degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation. Article 41 – EUR 2,000 for all damage. See press release no. 147 of 6 March 2007.   © 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