CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 février 2007

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   115 20.02.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ZEYNEP ÖZCAN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Zeynep Özcan v. Turkey (application no. 45906/99).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,500 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 750 already received from the Council of Europe by way of legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Zeynep Özcan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul.   The applicant, who was suspected of having stolen money and jewellery from the home of an individual for whom she carried out housework, was arrested and placed in police custody on 2 July 1998.   An initial medical report, drawn up on the same date, noted injuries. At the request of the prosecution service, the applicant was re-examined on 3 July; according to that report, she had a bruise measuring 9 x 4 cm on the inside and middle of the left arm, a triangle-shaped bruise in the middle of the right arm, a bruise measuring 6 x 4 cm with slight bleeding on the interior of the right elbow and a bruise measuring 1 x 2 cm underneath the left cheek bone. According to the report, the applicant claimed that she had been suspended by the arms and slapped in the face, that her arms had been squeezed and that her hair had also been pulled.   The applicant was released towards 7 p.m. on 3 July 1998. A ruling that there was no case to answer was issued on 9 July 1998.   On the day of her release, the applicant lodged a complaint against the police officers responsible for her detention in police custody, alleging torture.   On 14 June 2002 Bakırköy Assize Court sentenced police officers Mehmet Ali Karakullukçu and Hürdoğan Sakarya to ten months’ imprisonment and 15 days of exclusion from public service for acts of torture and inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment in respect of the applicant, with a view to extracting a confession from her. The court then ordered a stay of execution of this sentence. It also ordered the police officers to pay the applicant about EUR 1,406 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 November 1998.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged, in particular, that she had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 during her detention in police custody and complained of the lack of an effective remedy against arbitrary action by the police.     Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that, in spite of the seriousness of the offences with which they were charged, the police officers had continued to exercise their duties within the police force, without being troubled. For example, no disciplinary measure had been taken against them at any stage of the proceedings, even after the latter had terminated, with a view to excluding them permanently or temporarily from public service. In addition, both the manner in which the proceedings were conducted before the Assize Court and the sentences imposed on the police officers in question, sentences which amounted to de facto impunity, were elements which called into question the State’s vigilance.   Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3.     ***   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 Convention, 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.