CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 novembre 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 } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   807 20.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MUSTAFA KARABULUT v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Mustafa Karabulut v. Turkey (application no. 40803/02).   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, on account of ill-treatment of the applicant by police officers; had been a violation of Article 3 (lack of effective investigation) of the Convention, as there was no effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 6,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mustafa Karabulut, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul. On 6 December 1994 he was arrested following an altercation with a motorised police officer. Both Mr Karabulut and the officer were questioned about the incident by the police on the same day.   The parties disagreed as to the facts. It transpires from the case file that the applicant, a taxi driver, was parked on a prohibited space when Officer Ender asked to see his vehicle documents. When the applicant refused, the officer asked him to accompany him for purposes of impounding his vehicle. Mr Karabulut then agreed to present his documents, which were not in order. An altercation ensued. The deputy director of police for Beyoğlu (a district of Istanbul) and his driver, Officer Nail, were present at the scene and came to Officer Ender’s assistance.   It was not in dispute between the parties that the police officers had used force during the arrest. They gave different versions, however, as regards the time and frequency of the physical violence, given that Mr Karabulut claimed to have been the victim of ill-treatment not only during his arrest but also later. He alleged that the police officers had dragged him out of his car and taken him to a municipal building, during which time he had been handcuffed and beaten. He had then been taken to the police station, where he had been held down on the floor while the deputy director of police struck him on his feet and hands with a stick ( falaka ). He had then been forced to undress in the toilets and had been sprayed with water.   Mr Karabulut was released the next day and transferred to a medical institute. An examination revealed hyperaemia around his left eye and on the palms of his hands, with scratches on his hands and knees. He was prescribed three days’ sick leave.   Criminal proceedings were brought against the police officers in December 1994. They were acquitted by the Criminal Court, which considered that they had been obliged to use force in taking the applicant to the police station and that there was no conclusive evidence of any abuse of authority. The Criminal Court ultimately decided, in April 2001, to suspend the re-opened proceedings for five years.   Criminal proceedings were also brought against Mr Karabulut, on charges of resistance for having attempted to prevent the impounding of his vehicle. He was ultimately acquitted.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 October 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), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and while in police custody, and that he had had no effective remedy in respect of his complaints. He relied on Articles 3 and 13.     Decision of the Court   Article 3   As to the complaint of ill-treatment   The Court reiterated that, in the case of individuals taken into police custody, strong presumptions of fact arose in respect of injuries occurring during such detention. Accordingly it had been for the Government to provide a convincing explanation for the cause of the injuries.   The Court noted that Mr Karabulut had undergone a medical examination and observed that the Criminal Court had not given any plausible explanations for the circumstances in which the injuries had appeared on his body. The domestic court’s finding that the injuries had been the result of a legitimate use of force by police officers had not, moreover, been upheld by the Court of Cassation. The Court considered that this use of force had not been rendered necessary by the applicant’s conduct. In this connection it noted in particular that it had not been alleged that the police officers had had any reason to believe that the applicant was violent, dangerous or armed. Accordingly, the Court considered that the Turkish State was accountable for the injuries and held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   As to the lack of an effective investigation   The Court reiterated that there should be an effective official investigation in cases where an individual raised an arguable claim that he or she had been seriously ill-treated by the police, unlawfully and in breach of Article   3.   In the present case the complaint filed by the applicant had given rise to an investigation and to the opening of criminal proceedings. However, the proceedings had ended with a suspension of the judgment, thus ruling out the possibility that the precise origin of the injuries would ever be ascertained. Moreover, when the court decided on the suspension, the proceedings had already lasted for some six and a half years.   Accordingly, the Court considered that the Turkish authorities had not acted promptly enough or with reasonable diligence, such that the perpetrators of the acts of violence had enjoyed virtual impunity. There had thus been a violation of Article 3 under this head.     Article 13   Having regard to its above findings under Article 3, the Court considered that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under 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.