CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 avril 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. 85 April 2006 Sarı and Çolak v. Turkey - 42596/98 Judgment 4.4.2006 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Contact of person held in police custody with relatives: deportation would not constitute a violation   Facts : The applicants were held in police custody for more than seven days and were then convicted. They complained of the length of the custody and that they had been held incommunicado during that period. Law : Article 5(3) – It had not been necessary to detain the applicants for more than the statutory seven-day period before bringing them before a judge. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 8 – The applicants complained that they had not been able to contact their families during the period of more than seven days they had spent in incommunicado detention. Prior to 2002 there had been no legislation governing the right of suspects in police custody to contact family members or other persons outside. Although the applicants had been unable to prove that they had been refused permission to contact their families, the procedure for arranging such contact had not been clearly established either. The Government had not indicated what means had been available to the applicants to make contact with their families rapidly after being taken into custody. There had been no legislative framework affording practical and effective protection against a violation of Article 8. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court made awards for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses.   © 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