CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 mars 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 } .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   147 06.03.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ERDOĞAN YAĞIZ v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Erdoğan Yağiz v. Turkey (application no. 27473/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) because the applicant had been made to wear handcuffs during his arrest, while searches were being carried out and for the duration of his detention in custody.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 2,000   euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Erdoğan Yağiz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Istanbul. At the material time he had been working for the Istanbul security police, as a doctor, for 15 years.   In November 1999 a woman complained that two people had threatened her, alleging that they were protected by “security police chief Erdoğan”.   On 5 February 2000 at about 5 p.m. the applicant was arrested by three police officers in the carpark of the security police. He informed them that he was a police surgeon working for the security police, told them that they must have made a mistake and asked them not to handcuff him in front of hundreds of people. However, he was cuffed and taken to the office of the organised crime and arms trafficking section, where he was placed in police custody. On the same day he was taken in handcuffs to his home and his place of work, where searches were carried out.   Mr Yağiz was released on 8 February 2000. On the following day a psychiatrist diagnosed him as suffering from psychiatric shock and certified him unfit for work for 20 days.   On 16 February 2000 the applicant was informed that he was to be suspended until the close of the criminal investigation on account of his relations with individuals who had been convicted of blackmail, looting and unlawful imprisonment as members of an organised gang. Three days later the factory where he worked as a doctor under an individual contract terminated his employment, criticising him for failing to give the staff his care and attention, and referring to the fact that he was under psychiatric treatment.   The prosecuting authorities discontinued the case against the applicant on 9 March 2000. He was reinstated in his post at the security police in July 2000. However, on account of aggravated psychosomatic symptoms, he was retired early on health grounds, the diagnosis being “persecution-type hallucination under serious depression”. Since then he has been admitted several times as a psychiatric patient to the neuropsychiatry department of Bakırköy University Hospital.   In January 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint against five police officers, alleging that he had been handcuffed and then insulted in front of his family and police personnel. The proceedings were discontinued in December 2001.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 June 2002.   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 complained that he had been exposed to the public in handcuffs and then taken to his workplace and his home still in handcuffs. He alleged that the humiliations he had been subjected to had affected him to such an extent that he had lost all capacity to overcome them psychologically, had lost his job as a result and had been under psychiatric treatment ever since. He relied on Articles 3 and 8 in particular.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court reiterated that wearing handcuffs did not normally give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention where it was in connection with lawful arrest or detention, and did not entail the use of force or public exposure exceeding what was reasonably considered necessary in the circumstances of the case.   It accepted that wearing handcuffs in public might affect a person’s self-esteem and cause him or her psychological damage. In the present case the medical and psychiatric reports showed that Mr Yağiz had been mentally affected by the treatment inflicted. Wearing handcuffs in public, at his workplace and in front of his family had caused him a strong feeling of humiliation and shame, especially in consideration of his duties. His mental state had been irreversibly marked by the incident and he had been incapable of overcoming the ordeal. In addition, it was obvious that the feeling of humiliation experienced by the applicant had been aggravated by the fact that this had taken place in public.   The Court further considered that wearing handcuffs was not a measure made necessary by the applicant’s conduct, and attached importance to the fact that the Turkish Government had made no comment on this point. It considered that, in the particular circumstances of the case, exposing the applicant to public view wearing handcuffs, which was, as it had found, unnecessary, had been intended to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and possibly breaking his moral resistance.   That being so, the Court considered that making the applicant wear handcuffs constituted degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 and held that there had been a breach of that provision.   Article 8   The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 8, which was identical to that examined under Article 3.   Judge Cabral Barreto expressed a concurring 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 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.