CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 octobre 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. October 1997 Erdagöz v. Turkey - 21890/93 Judgment 22.10.1997 Article 3 Inhuman treatment Treatment undergone during deprivation of liberty in a police station: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF CASE Government sought to limit scope of case to issues under Article 5 § 1 – Commission and applicant opposed limitation of matter referred. “Compass of case” delimited by Commission’s admissibility decision not by its report – Court had full jurisdiction within limits of case referred to it. Conclusion : plea dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION Establishment and verification of facts: primarily a matter for Commission, but Court remained free to make its own appreciation – moreover, not in principle for Court to substitute its own view of the facts for that of domestic courts, whose task it was to assess evidence adduced before them. Allegation of ill-treatment: no evidence capable of persuading Court to repudiate findings in discontinuation order to the effect that, although traces of blows and injuries on applicant’s body were mentioned in medical report, there was no proof that these lesions resulted from ill-treatment allegedly inflicted by one of the police officers. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Government’s preliminary objection (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Objection that applicant had omitted to rely on Law no. 466 of 7 May 1964 and had not instituted proceedings in Turkish courts under Article 19 § 8 of Constitution: not submitted at admissibility stage, therefore inadmissible on grounds of estoppel. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of complaint “Reasonable suspicion [that a person has] committed an offence”: “suspicion” required need not be on same level as suspicion necessary to justify a conviction or the bringing of a charge – for there to be “reasonable suspicion” there must be facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that person concerned may have committed an offence. In instant case suspicion reached required level since it was based on specific facts – having regard to applicant’s conduct and nature of offences in question, Court able to agree with public prosecutor’s opinion. Conclusion : no violation (seven votes to two).   © 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