CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 octobre 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   640 2.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT FAHRİYE ÇALIŞKAN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Fahriye Çalişkan v. Turkey (application no. 40516/98).   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; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 7,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Fahriye Çalışkan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Manisa (Turkey). She is a doctor.   On 11 October 1994 police officers went to her surgery in order to take her to the Gölmarmara police station in connection with the apparently unauthorised sale of tickets for a show organised by an association to which she belonged. Under the gaze of the waiting patients, the police accompanied the applicant to the police station, where she attempted to speak with an officer other than S.Ç., an inspector against whom she had previously filed an administrative complaint for various offences.   According to the applicant, while she was speaking to the deputy inspector, S.Ç. entered the office and rushed towards her. He insulted her, shook her, hit her on the head and restrained her arms, then pulled her hair and spat in her face. According to the Turkish authorities, the applicant began insulting inspector S.Ç.   as soon as she arrived at the police station. She then tried to leave the premises but was forcibly returned by the police officers.   The applicant and the inspector were both examined at Gölmarmara medical centre. The report on the inspector noted that he had a swelling measuring 5 cm under the left eye. With regard to Ms Çalışkan, the doctor found a bruise and a haematoma measuring 7 ‑ 8   cm on the inside of the left arm, swelling on the left side of the scalp and irritation to the scalp, and concluded that the applicant “had probably been beaten”. The applicant, who was feeling faint, was examined on the same date by a neurologist. He noted that she was suffering from nausea, problems with her vision and a cranial traumatism, and ordered an urgent examination at the neurosurgical unit in Ege Hospital; this was carried out on 12 October 1994. That examination resulted in a diagnosis of a parietal haematoma necessitating five days’ sick leave. She was re-examined on 18 October 1994 by doctors from Izmir Human Rights Association, who found bruises measuring 2x7 cm on the back of the arm and 2x3 cm on the distal part of the right forearm, symptoms of insomnia and amnesia, difficulty in concentrating and anxiety.   S.Ç. submitted a complaint to the police station, accusing the applicant of insulting and attacking him. At the close of those proceedings Ms Çalışkan was acquitted in July 1996.   On 14 October 1994 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against the inspector, accusing him of ill-treatment. In support of her claims, she submitted the medical reports drawn up on the day of the incident. In his investigation report, the deputy director of the Manisa security police, in his capacity as an inspector, criticised those medical reports and condemned a certain “protectionism” and fellow-feeling on the part of the doctors towards a colleague. Taking that report into account, the provincial police disciplinary board decided in February 1995 that, in the absence of sufficient evidence, there were no grounds for prosecuting S.Ç. On 21 June 1995 the Manisa provincial administrative court endorsed this conclusion and ruled that there was no case to answer, a finding that was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court in June 1997.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 November 1997 and declared partly admissible on 5 January 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), judges , and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged that the inspector had subjected to her to treatment that was contrary to Article 3 during her visit to the police station on 11 October 1994. Relying on Article 13, she also complained that she had had no effective remedy to put forward her complaints in this regard.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court pointed out that where an individual was deprived of his or her liberty or, more generally, was dealing with law-enforcement officers, recourse to physical force which had not been made strictly necessary by his or her own conduct diminished human dignity and was in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article   3.   In the applicant’s case, it was not contested that the disputed incident took place on 11   October 1994 or that inspector S.Ç. had used force against the applicant. The Court considered that the medical evidence available was sufficiently corroborative to give credence to the applicant’s allegation that the inspector had pulled her hair, restrained her by the arms and struck her head.   The Court was prepared to assume that the inspector might have acted to control the applicant, who was allegedly highly agitated at the relevant time. Nevertheless, the incident involved a woman who found herself alone in a police station, to which she had been brought in connection with a straightforward problem concerning an association. The Court considered that, even filled with resentment on account of having been struck, an inspector, surrounded by his subordinates, should have acted with greater self-control and certainly used other methods than those which left the applicant unable to work for five days. That treatment had been debasing, likely to inspire disproportionate feelings of fear and vulnerability, and could not correspond to the necessary use of force. Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court held that, in the applicant’s case, its only role was to examine whether, in view of the Turkish courts’ reaction to her “arguable” claim under Article 3, the applicant had been able to make use of the system for pecuniary compensation that ought to exist under Article 13.   The Court noted in particular that the actions of the Manisa administrative court, which had merely endorsed the conclusions of an inspector who was himself a member of the police force, were a factor which had considerably weakened the stringency of the judicial machinery in place, in so far as its implementation had ultimately failed to establish the facts or the possible liability arising from the applicant’s allegations.   The Court considered that the procedures initiated had not therefore been effective, in that they had not provided the applicant with any reasonable ground for seeking compensation from the administrative or civil courts since, in either case, it would have been necessary to prove, at the least, that she had been the victim of ill-treatment at the hands of a State agent. Accordingly, 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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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.