CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 décembre 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 } .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   813 21.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GÜZEL ŞAHİN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Güzel Şahin and Others v. Turkey (application no. 68263/01).   The Court held unanimously there had been   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of ill-treatment of five of the applicants during the breaking up of a demonstration; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The Court made awards for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of EUR 12,000 each to Seza Horoz and Güzel Şahin, and EUR   5,000 each to Önder Dolutaş, Birsen Gülünay and Gülizar Şahin. It also awarded those five applicants EUR 3,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The seven applicants, Güzel Şahin, Türkan Şahin, Gülizar Şahin, Seza Horoz, Derya Aras, Birsen Gülünay and Önder Dolutaş, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1943, 1975, 1950, 1956, 1979, 1977 and 1966 respectively and live in Istanbul.   On 1 May 1998 a demonstration was organised in Istanbul to celebrate Labour Day. There were clashes with demonstrators when the security forces intervened to break up the demonstration. 36 police officers were injured and 261 people were arrested and taken into police custody, including Ms Horoz, Ms Aras, Ms Gülünay, Ms Türkan Şahin, Ms Gülizar Şahin, and Mr Dolutaş.   Ms Horoz, Ms Aras, Ms Gülünay, Ms Türkan Şahin, Mr Dolutaş were charged with 239 others with taking part in an illegal demonstration, refusing an order to disperse and attacking police officers with batons and stones. In February 2001 a criminal court ruled that the charges came within the provisions of the Release on Licence and Deferred Prosecution and Sentencing Act (Law no. 4616) and deferred its decision for a period of five years.   On the day of their arrest five of the applicants were examined by doctors. Gülizar Şahin was found to have bruising to her left wrist caused by a sharp blow. Türkan Şahin showed no signs of injury. Birsen Gülünay had a slight swelling to the right elbow and a 10 cm long and 3 cm thick hyperemic area on her back. Derya Aras had a 7 cm rash on her right side and a 2 x 2 cm swelling to the front right occipital area and to her left side. Önder Dolutaş had bruising and tenderness to the forehead. Güzel Şahin was examined on 5 May 1998 by a police doctor who found bruising to the shoulder blade and left elbow, the upper right arm, the left shoulder blade and left knee and a 2 cm scratch to the outer wrist.   On 6 May 1998 Ms Horoz, Ms Aras and Ms Türkan Şahin were again examined by a police doctor who noted in particular multiple bruising to the upper limbs and thighs and to Ms   Türkan Şahin’s face.   In June 1999 the public prosecutor ruled that no action should be taken on complaints of ill-treatment that had been lodged by the applicants, as he considered that the assembly was unlawful and the police had used no more force than that necessary to disperse it.   On 18 September 2000 the Beyoğlu Assize Court dismissed the appeals of Ms Horoz, Ms   Güzel Şahin and Ms Gülizar Şahin against that decision.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 21 March 2001 and declared partly inadmissible on 20 October 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to police violence when the demonstration was broken up and that their right to an effective remedy had been violated by the manner in which the investigation into their complaints was conducted. They relied in particular on Articles 3 and 13.   Decision of the Court   The Court declared the complaints of Seza Horoz, Güzel Şahin, Gülizar Şahin, Birsen Gülünay and Önder Dolutaş under Articles 3 and 13 admissible and the remaining complaints inadmissible.     Article 3   The Turkish Government did not deny that the applicant’s injuries had been caused by the security forces. Accordingly, it was for the Court to determine whether the force used was proportionate.   In that connection, the Court observed, firstly, that the Turkish authorities had acknowledged that Gülizar Şahin may have happened on the scene by chance. Further, even assuming that the other applicants were active participants in the allegedly unlawful assembly, there was no evidence in the case file to establish that they had offered any resistance to the security forces or had displayed a degree of aggressiveness necessitating the use of force of that level. The Court considered that the need to disperse the assembly could not of itself explain the violence of the blows or the extent of the bruising.   In these circumstances, the Court found that it had not been established that the force used on the applicants was absolutely necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued, namely dispersing an allegedly unlawful assembly. The number and gravity of the injuries sustained by the applicants were not consistent with the use of force rendered strictly necessary by the applicants’ conduct. The Court therefore held that there been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court found that the investigation had not satisfied the effectiveness requirements of Article 13 and so had violated that provision.         ***   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.