CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 décembre 2006

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. 92 December 2006 Oya Ataman v. Turkey - 74552/01 Judgment 5.12.2006 [Section II] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Forceful breaking up by police of a peaceful demonstration, held in a park during a busy period without submission of mandatory prior notification: no violation   Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Use of a teargas, known as “pepper spray”, to break up demonstrators: no violation   Facts : The applicant, president of the Istanbul Human Rights Association, organised a demonstration in Sultanahmet Square in Istanbul in the form of a march followed by a statement to the press. The police requested the group of 40-50 people, who were demonstrating by waving placards, to break up, telling them that the demonstration was unlawful as no prior notification had been given, and that they would be disturbing public order at a busy time of day. The demonstrators refused to comply and attempted to force their way through. The police used a kind of tear gas known as “pepper spray” to disperse them. Law : Article 3 – “Pepper spray” was not among the toxic gases listed in the applicable international legislation. While its use could cause physical discomfort, the applicant had not submitted any medical report demonstrating that she had suffered ill-effects after being exposed to the gas, nor had she asked for a medical examination. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 11 – The group of demonstrators – some fifty persons who had wished to draw public attention to a topical issue – had not represented any danger to public order, apart from possibly disrupting traffic. The rally had begun at around midday and had ended within half an hour with the police intervention. The Court was struck by the authorities’ impatience in seeking to end the demonstration, which had been organised under the auspices of the Human Rights Association. Where demonstrators did not engage in acts of violence it was important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings. The forceful intervention of the police had been disproportionate and had not been necessary for the prevention of disorder. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – Non-pecuniary damage: finding of a violation sufficient. For further details see press release no. 753.   © 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