CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 juin 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   407 12.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT NEVRUZ KOÇ v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Nevruz Koç v. Turkey (application no. 18207/03).   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; and, a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses less the EUR 850 granted by way of legal aid.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Nevruz Koç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Istanbul.   On 30 November 1997 Mr Koç, who was on his way home from work, was involved in an argument with a group of people waiting at a bus stop in the Sarıyer district. He ended up being arrested by a patrolling police officer (H.Ö.) and taken into police custody.   On the same day, a deputy superintendent and H.Ö drew up a police report, corroborated by three eye-witnesses. The report stated that, on intervening in the incident, the applicant had insulted H.Ö, pushed him and head-butted him in the face. It also noted that the applicant had continued his aggressive behaviour at the police station. According to the Turkish Government, H.Ö had to use force to arrest the applicant and was assisted by a members of the public.   Mr Koç disputed that version of events. He stated that he was a member of HADEP (the People’s Democracy Party) and that the group of people at the bus stop had attacked him because of his Kurdish origin. He claimed that he was kicked and punched during his arrest and that, during the subsequent police custody, he was subjected to ill-treatment. He alleged notably that police officers had blindfolded, severely beaten, punched, kicked and struck him on the legs with truncheons and batons. He maintained that, because police officers had stamped on his feet and, in particular, hit his left leg, he had been unable to walk for a considerable time. Ultimately, he had had to undergo an operation on his left foot.   The Turkish Government maintained either: that the applicant might have injured himself, in view of his reckless conduct on the day in question, in order to avoid further detention; or,   that his injuries might have been caused by individuals who had assisted the police officer in forcing the applicant into the police car. They also maintained that the force used by the police officer to ensure the applicant's arrest was no more than necessary as the applicant had posed a threat to the people around him.   On 1 December 1997, H.Ö was medically examined: the resulting report noted that his nose was bleeding and swollen, which justified four days’ sick leave. On the same day, Mr Koç was also examined by a doctor who noted no injuries to his body. However, subsequent medical examinations dated 9, 10, 14, 15 and 16 December 1997 (while the applicant was still in detention on remand) showed that he had sustained injuries to his foot and wrists.   On 5 March 1998 Sarıyer Criminal Court convicted the applicant of obstructing an officer on duty and aggressive drunkenness, and sentenced him to a fine, which was suspended.   Mr Koç filed a complaint with the Sarıyer public prosecutor on 20 May 1998 and proceedings were brought against the police officers accused of the ill-treatment. However, they were suspended by Sarıyer Assize Court on 16 March 2001 by virtue of Law no.   4616, which provided for the discontinuance of criminal proceedings if no offences of the same kind were committed by the offenders within a five-year period from the suspension decision. Mr Koç unsuccessfully challenged that decision before the Court of Cassation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 May 2003.   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   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Koç alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. He also complained that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his complaints and that the criminal proceedings against the police officers accused of the ill-treatment had been suspended, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court reiterated that, where an individual had been taken into custody in good health but was found to be injured by the time of release, the State concerned was required to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused and to produce evidence casting doubt on the victim's allegations, particularly if those allegations were corroborated by medical reports.   The Court noted that the information contained in the reports of 1 December and 9 December 1997 was contradictory. It further observed that the Turkish Government did not dispute the medical findings in the report of 9 December 1997, but put forward a different version as to the cause of the injuries.   The Court took note of the applicant's reckless, drunken and aggressive behaviour on the day of the incident. It observed that he resisted the policeman during the arrest, injuring the officer, who was reported to be unfit for duty for four days. However, the applicant was not examined medically upon his arrest. In the Court's view, such an examination would have been the appropriate step for the authorities to have taken, especially as a police officer had had to resort to force during the arrest. Such a report could also have provided clarification of the acts of third parties which might have contributed to the applicant's condition.   Furthermore, considering the gravity and nature of the injuries (particularly the injury to the applicant's left foot which required an operation and rendered him unfit for work for 15 days), the Court did not deem it likely that they were self-inflicted. Therefore, the Court attached no weight to the findings of the first medical report of 1 December 1997, in which no signs of violence were found on the applicant. Consequently, the Court was not satisfied with the Government's explanations as to the manner in which the injuries found at the end of the detention period were sustained by the applicant.   In these circumstances, and in the absence of a plausible explanation by the Government, the Court considered that the symptoms noted in the prison doctor's report of 9 December 1997, confirmed by further medical reports, were the result of treatment for which the State bore responsibility. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 3.       Article 13   The Court noted that the proceedings in question did not produce any result due to the application of Law no. 4616, which created virtual impunity for the perpetrators of the acts of violence, despite the evidence against them.   Consequently, the Court considered that the criminal-law system, as applied in the applicant's case, had proved to be far from rigorous and had had no dissuasive effect capable of ensuring the effective prevention of unlawful acts such as those complained of by the applicant.   Considering that the proceedings in the applicant’s case could not be described as thorough and effective, the Court held unanimously that there had 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.