CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 octobre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sED4A036D { width:99.75pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   599 17.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SULTAN ÖNER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Sultan Öner and Others v. Turkey (applications nos. 73792/01 and 5405/02).   The Court held unanimously:   that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights; that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention; and, that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Sultan Öner 10,000 euros (EUR) and Ciğerhun and Nurşin Öner EUR 7,500 each for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded the applicants EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses, less the sum of EUR 685 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Sultan Öner, her son Ciğerhun and her daughter Nurşin, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1968, 1989 and 1992 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey).   In 1999 the first applicant was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment for being a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). She complained of a series of events between October 2000 and November 2001, submitting that during that time she and her children had been arrested, beaten and harassed by the security forces.     Sultan Öner maintained, among other things, that on 16 October 2000 she had gone to Burdur Prison with her children, at the time aged 11 and eight, to visit her husband. At the end of the visit, at about 2.30 p.m., she was surrounded in the prison garden by three warders and five gendarmes, on the ground that, according to the central police database, she was wanted by the İzmir police. She was slapped and kicked in front of her children, at the same time being subjected to coarse insults and threats. Shortly afterwards, she was arrested with her children and taken to Kemal Sunal police station. She was subsequently examined by a doctor from Burdur Civil Hospital, who found no signs of blows on her body.   At about 7 p.m. the first applicant and her children were taken to a cell. In the meantime it had transpired that she was not currently wanted by the İzmir police, who had simply neglected to keep the data in the central system up to date and to inform the police network that the wanted notice issued prior to her initial arrest was no longer valid. On 17 October 2000 Mrs Öner underwent a further examination by a doctor from Burdur Clinic, who found no signs of assault on her body. The applicants were released at about 9.20 a.m.   On the following day the first applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the doctor from Burdur Civil Hospital, the gendarmes and warders who had carried out the arrest and the police officers in whose custody they had been detained, alleging abuse of official authority, ill-treatment and insulting and threatening behaviour. A doctor examined the first applicant at the public prosecutor’s request and in his report noted the presence of two greenish bruises 2   cm in diameter on her left arm and thigh. The investigation into the complaint was discontinued in December 2000. An administrative inquiry was also carried out in respect of the two officials responsible for the error in the database that had resulted in the first applicant’s arrest. In January 2001 the İzmir Administrative Council, to which the matter was referred under the Prosecution of Civil Servants Act, decided that the officials in question should not be prosecuted as their actions had merely involved a material error.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 April 2001 and 14 January 2002. The Court decided to join them on 8 March 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged violations of Articles 3, 5, 8 and 13 in particular.         Decision of the Court   The Court declared the application admissible as regards the events relating to the applicants’ arrest on 16 October 2000.   Article 5 § 1 The Court observed that there had been no grounds for arresting Sultan Öner, let alone keeping her in detention for approximately 18 hours on police premises. Even accepting that such a period did not fall foul of the promptness requirement in Article 5, the need to spare two children from the perils of such a situation was in itself sufficient to require a speedier reaction on the part of the authorities responsible for reviewing the lawfulness of the detention. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   Article 3 The Court noted at the outset that Sultan Öner, accompanied by her two minor children, had been arrested by eight members of the security forces and alleged that she had been beaten in the process. In the absence of a convincing explanation as to the discrepancy between the first two medical reports and the subsequent one, it had to be presumed that the initial medical examinations had not been carried out properly or that the injuries caused at the time of the arrest had not been apparent until a later stage.   The Court therefore considered it established that the alleged acts of brutality had occurred at the time of Sultan Öner’s arrest, although there was no evidence to suggest that the use of such violence had been rendered necessary by her conduct. Apart from being unjustified, the violence had been inflicted by several men in the context of an unlawful arrest, thereby entailing an element of arbitrariness that was sufficient to give rise to a feeling of despair and inferiority in the first applicant. She would also have felt humiliated and debased, since the acts in question had taken place not only in front of her children but also in front of the members of the public present in the prison garden.   Furthermore, as the police authorities had paid no regard to their situation, the first applicant’s young children had been subject to neglect and had suffered undeniable physical and psychological harm directly attributable to the conditions imposed on their mother. There was no doubt that the system had failed to protect the children.   Taken separately, the circumstances of the case had perhaps not given rise to treatment attaining a high level of severity. However, their cumulative effect had been such as to arouse in the applicants disproportionate feelings of fear, anxiety and vulnerability capable of debasing them. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13 The Court considered that neither the criminal nor the administrative inquiry could be regarded as satisfactory. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 13.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).       Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.