CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 avril 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 } .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   226 12.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT USLU v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Uslu v. Turkey (application no. 33168/03).   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 concerning the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant while in custody; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000   euros (EUR) for corporal and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses less EUR 850 paid by the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Abdülkadir Uslu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul.   He was arrested and taken into police custody on 30 September 1998 on suspicion of armed robbery as a member of an organised gang. According to the arrest report, a fight broke out when he was stopped by the police, during which he attempted to make his escape.   On 1 October 1998 the applicant was examined by a doctor at Haseki Hospital. The medical report produced on that occasion noted five lines of bruising around his head and neck, bruising on his body and an injury to one eye.   On 7 October 1998 the applicant underwent a further medical examination which established that there were numerous areas of lesionary hyperaemia measuring 30 by 6 cm and 20 by 5   cm on his person and traces of blows and wounds; the applicant declared that he had been beaten and tortured while in police custody.   Mr Uslu lodged a complaint alleging that the police officers in whose custody he had been had ill-treated him. Proceedings were brought against 13 police officers, who were committed for trial in the Istanbul Assize Court.   On 5 April 2001, without summoning Mr Uslu, the Assize Court acquitted the police officers on the ground that the force they had used against him had been justified in order to effect his arrest and had not exceeded the statutory limits.   Mr Uslu, who was detained pending trial in the Inebolu remand prison, appealed on points of law against the police officers’ acquittal. He twice submitted to the prison authorities, within the time allowed, a statement of the grounds of appeal, to be sent by the next post to the relevant assize court. However, although sent on 4 May 2001, his appeal was not registered until 9 May as it had not been approved by the prison authorities. As it was received one day after the time-limit for appeals on points of law, it was dismissed as being out of time.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 September 2003 and declared partly inadmissible on 7 March 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained, under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, that he had suffered ill-treatment while in police custody and submitted that the proceedings against the police officers had not been conducted in a thorough manner.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Turkish Government submitted that the sole cause of the lesions on the applicant’s person had been the use of proportionate and legitimate force at the time of his arrest, when he was attempting to make his escape.   The Court did not find that explanation plausible. Even supposing that the applicant had been injured at the time of his arrest through the legitimate use of force, that incident could not explain the discrepancy between the injuries noted during the first medical examination and those recorded six days later by the forensic medical officer. The second report mentioned injuries not found during the initial examination for which the Government had not provided a plausible explanation. The Court further noted that the assize court had not attempted to explain the discrepancy.   That being so, the Court considered that the injuries sustained by Mr Uslu revealed ill-treatment inflicted while he was in police custody which was both inhuman and degrading. It accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court considered that the fact that the applicant was not summoned to the assize court proceedings, and the particularly formalist interpretation by the Court of Cassation of the time-limit for appeals on points of law, had made the applicant’s recourse to the criminal justice system ineffective. There had therefore 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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.