CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 novembre 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 } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; 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 } .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   702 16.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT HUYLU v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Huylu v. Turkey (application no. 52955/99).   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the death of the applicant’s son; that there had been a violation of Article 2 on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the death of the applicant’s son.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   Binali Huylu is a Turkish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Ankara.   In August 1998 the applicant’s son, Engin Huylu, aged 22, was sentenced to 18 years and 20 days’ imprisonment for belonging to an illegal armed organisation, the extreme left-wing group DHKP/C.   The applicant submitted that since March 1998 Engin had been suffering from severe headaches that had been diagnosed as migraines by the doctor at Çankırı Prison. He had been taken several times to Çankırı Public Hospital, accompanied by gendarmes who, according to the applicant, had subjected him to physical and psychological violence. By the end of 1998, the applicant claimed, his son had become incapable of eating, reading, performing manual tasks, playing sport or taking part in the walks prescribed by the regulations.   On 26 January 1999 Engin was transferred to Çankırı Hospital but was sent back to prison without having been able to see a doctor. On the following day he was taken to Çankırı Hospital’s neurology department, where he was given painkillers. He asked to be transferred to Ankara Hospital but his request was refused.   The applicant maintained that from February 1999 his son had been unable to get out of bed without assistance from other prisoners because of his severe headaches; he had been unable to stand up, let alone walk unaided, and had suffered from trembling, appetite loss, vomiting and blackouts.   On 5 February 1999 at 11 p.m. Engin was rushed unconscious to Çankırı Public Hospital. At about 1 a.m. he was taken back to prison after being prescribed painkillers.   On 6 February at 2.40 a.m. the emergency doctor at Çankırı Public Hospital, believing that Engin might have a brain tumour, asked for him to be transferred to the neurology department at Ankara Hospital. Engin was taken away in an armoured vehicle at 4 a.m. and died at Ankara Hospital at 6.50 a.m.   At the request of the prosecuting authorities, an autopsy was conducted on the day of Engin’s death; the report concluded that he had died from respiratory and circulatory failure. A supplementary autopsy report referred to bronchopneumonia. The public prosecutor’s office interviewed several of Engin’s fellow prisoners, who confirmed that he had suffered from severe headaches causing vomiting and trembling, that he had had balance problems and difficulty eating, and that his symptoms had appeared increasingly often as time had gone on.   In April 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint against the staff of Çankırı Prison, the gendarmes on duty at the time of the events and the doctors from Çankırı Hospital. After questioning the emergency doctor and the neurologist who had examined Engin, the public prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against them for reckless and negligent homicide. In February 2001 Çankırı Criminal Court stayed the proceedings for five years. Following the complaint against the prison staff, evidence was taken from, among others, the prison doctor and nurse and the governor and his deputy. Criminal proceedings were brought against four individuals; however, in April 2001 Çankırı Criminal Court stayed the proceedings for five years.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 August 1999 and declared partly admissible on 9   December 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Riza Türmen (Turkish), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained under Article 2 (right to life) that his son’s death had resulted from the national authorities’ inaction.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   Death of the applicant’s son The Court noted that the prison and medical authorities could not have been unaware of Engin’s health problems. It observed in that connection that the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison stated, among other things, that prisoners requiring special medical treatment should be transferred to specialist institutions or civil hospitals where the treatment could not be provided in prison.   The Court noted that Engin had been transferred to Çankırı Hospital, where, despite the deterioration of his health, he had been unable to see a doctor. Furthermore, the fact that he had not been given a thorough examination by specialists and that his fellow prisoners had had to compensate for his lack of treatment showed that his health had not been monitored satisfactorily.   Engin had been given no medicine other than analgesics and had not had a thorough medical examination despite the rapid decline in his health, which should have alerted the doctors and prison authorities to the seriousness of his condition. In view of the clear deterioration of his health, Engin should have been transferred much earlier to a hospital with sufficient medical resources and specialist doctors, such as Ankara Hospital, so that his illness could have been diagnosed and he could have been given appropriate treatment or assistance from more competent people.   Furthermore, without wishing to speculate on whether the fact that Engin had not been taken to hospital in an ambulance might have contributed to his death, the Court observed that that fact was, to say the least, revealing as to the manner in which the prison and medical authorities had responded to the deterioration of his health.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that the Turkish authorities had not displayed the necessary diligence in reacting to Engin’s condition and had not taken steps to diagnose his illness and prescribe appropriate treatment.   The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 2 on account of the applicant’s son’s death.   Investigation into the death of the applicant’s son The Court noted that criminal proceedings had been instituted after Engin’s death, and that during the course of the proceedings a number of investigative measures had been taken by the public prosecutor’s office. However, the criminal proceedings, which could have enabled the authorities to apportion liability in the case, had not been concluded as a result of the entry into force of Law no. 4616 on parole, adjournment of proceedings and sentence enforcement for offences committed before 23 April 1999.   The Court found it regrettable that following the Law’s entry into force, the Criminal Court had stayed both sets of proceedings for five years. Having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, it considered that staying the proceedings amounted to granting a kind of statutory immunity to the individuals who had been prosecuted, thereby rendering the remedy used by the public prosecutor's office and the applicant devoid of all effectiveness.   The Court therefore held that there had been a further violation of Article 2 in that the Turkish authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into the death of the applicant’s son.   Judge Türmen expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   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.