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 } .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   810 20.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT NECDET BULUT v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Necdet Bulut v. Turkey (application no. 77092/01).   The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the applicant’s leg injury, which was caused by police gunfire during his arrest.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court, by six votes to one, awarded the applicant 5,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Necdet Bulut, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in Freiburg (Switzerland).   On 15 July 2000 the applicant, then aged 16, was shot in the leg by Turkish police officers who were trying to arrest him.   According to the police report, at around 2.30 a.m. police officers had received information from police headquarters that a group of masked persons had been seen writing on walls and tampering with cars in the district of Kartal in Istanbul. On arrival at the scene, the police officers saw graffiti on the walls; someone also started to shoot at them from a dark alley on the opposite side of the street. The police officers and reinforcement police teams which had arrived in the meantime chased the suspects for about one hour. They were eventually cornered on an empty plot of land and, despite being ordered to surrender, continued to shoot before entering a tent. Following a clash, the applicant was injured and immediately taken to Kartal State Hospital for treatment. The incident report stated that the police found masks, illegal documents, knives and spray paint in the tent. It also mentioned that a cap gun (a toy gun that made a sound like a gunshot and released a puff of smoke when the trigger was pulled) had been found in the applicant’s possession. Between 15 and 17 July 2000 the applicant received medical treatment in hospital. According to the medical report of 17 July 2000 he had a fractured fibula (small bone located on the outside of the lower leg). It was established that the bullet had entered from the back of his leg and exited from the front.   On 17 July 2000 forensic experts found no traces of gunpowder on samples taken from the hands and palms of the applicant and the other suspects.   The same day, the public prosecutor at Istanbul State Security Court heard evidence from the applicant, who denied knowing the other suspects or writing graffiti. He claimed that he had started to run out of fear on hearing gunshots nearby and that the police officers had beaten him. His co-accused affirmed that none of them had fired at the police officers. They also suggested that the applicant had been injured after they had been taken out of the tent and made to lie down on the ground. Some of the accused referred to hearing gunshots from a wedding nearby.   An investigation was opened into the incident. On 23 March 2001 the public prosecutor concerned decided not to prosecute the eight police officers involved on the ground that there was no evidence supporting the suspects’ allegations that they had been ill-treated during their arrest. The prosecutor further considered that the applicant had been injured as a result of a clash between the police officers and the suspects. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 August 2001.   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), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Pâivi Hirvelä (Finnish), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), in particular, the applicant complained that disproportionate force was used during his arrest and that there was no adequate or effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the incident.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court reiterated that Article 3 did not prohibit the use of force in certain well-defined circumstances, such as to effect an arrest. However, it had to be indispensable and not excessive.   The Court found the applicant’s gunshot injury to be sufficiently serious to bring it within the scope of Article 3. It was undisputed that it resulted from the use of force by police officers in the performance of their duties, namely while effecting an arrest. However, differing versions of how the applicant had actually sustained the injury were put forward by the parties.   The Court took particular note of a number of facts. The police were initially called upon to attend to an incident without any prior preparation and the incident occurred late in the evening in a residential area where gunshots were heard. In addition, according to the official documents, the applicant was found with a cap gun in his possession which could have conveyed the impression that he was carrying a weapon. However, the police officers, who largely outnumbered the suspects, gave chase for about an hour before they cornered the applicant and the other suspects in a tent where the applicant was shot and arrested. The security forces were thus able, with the lapse of time, to properly evaluate the situation and to organise and coordinate their efforts accordingly. Against that background and, particularly, in the light of the type of force used, namely firearms, the Court considered that it was for the Turkish Government to prove that the use of force, which resulted in the applicant’s injury, was not excessive.   However, the Government merely stated that the police officers had opened fire only after the applicant had shot at them, without providing any explanation or documentation which could shed light on the exact circumstances regarding the applicant’s arrest. Neither was there any information in the case file as regards the manner in which the police operation was conducted. The Court also found it noteworthy that the bullet trajectory indicated that the applicant was not facing the police officers when he was hit and that consequently he could not have been shooting at the police officers, at least at that precise moment, as the Government had suggested. In those circumstances, the Court found that the Government had failed to provide convincing or credible arguments which would justify the degree of force used against the applicant in order to arrest him.   Finally, although the applicant’s injury – a single gunshot wound to a non-vital organ – appeared not to have had any lasting consequences for his health, the Court found that it must have led to severe pain and suffering, particularly given his young age at the time of the events.   The Court therefore concluded that the force used against the applicant during his arrest was excessive and that the State was responsible for his knee injury, in violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court considered that there was no need to give a separate ruling on the applicant’s remaining complaints under Articles 3 and 13.   Judge Türmen expressed a dissenting 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) 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.