CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 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 } .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   855 29.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BALÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Balçık and Others v. Turkey (application no. 25/02).   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 concerning Sema Gül and Semiha Kırkoç; a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded 3,000   euros   (EUR), each, to Sema Gül and Semiha Kırkoç in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It further held unanimously that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Erkal Balçık, Kubilay İyit, Filiz Kalkan, Meral Kalanç and Gülsen Dinler. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Erkal Balçık, Kubilay İyit, Filiz Kalkan, Semiha Kırkoç, Meral Kalanç, Sema Gül and Gülsen Dinler, are seven Turkish nationals who live in Istanbul (Turkey). They were born in 1967, 1979, 1971, 1963, 1979, 1973 and 1972 respectively.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaints about their arrest during a demonstration.   On 5 August 2000 at noon, the applicants gathered in Istanbul together with 39 others to make a declaration to the press in which they protested against F-type prisons. The demonstrators were informed by the police that their march was unlawful: no advance notice had been submitted to the authorities and it would disrupt public order. They were ordered to disperse. The group did not comply with those orders and attempted to continue its march.   Subsequently, around 12.30 p.m. the police dispersed the group, allegedly by using truncheons and tear-gas. The applicants and other demonstrators were arrested and taken to Beyoğlu central police directorate and Karaköy police station, where they were kept for one day. The applicants Sema Gül and Semiha Kırkoç were taken to hospital. Doctors noted “bruises on both arms and a swelling on the left foot” as concerned Sema Gül and a “4 cm long laceration on the left parietal region” on Semiha Kırkoç.   On an unspecified date, the applicants filed a petition with the public prosecutor against the police officers who had carried out the arrest. The local courts ruled that the force used by the officers was in accordance with Article 16 of Law No. 2559 on the Duties and Powers of the Police and had not been excessive.   In August 2000, criminal charges were brought against the applicants, who were accused of taking part in an illegal demonstration without prior authorisation and not dispersing despite a police officers’ warning. They were ultimately acquitted in September 2005, as the criminal court held that making a press statement was a constitutional right and that prior authorisation was not needed to use that right. It further observed that it was not certain that the warning given to disperse could be heard by all the demonstrators.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 September 2001.   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), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained of their arrest during the demonstration. They relied, in particular, on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 7 (no punishment without law), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted, in particular, that Mr Balçık, Mr İyit, Ms Kalkan, Ms Kalanç and Ms Dinler had not submitted any medical reports or other evidence which could prove their allegations of ill-treatment and therefore dismissed their complaints under Article   3.   It was undisputed between the parties that the injuries observed on Ms Kırkoç and Ms Gül had been caused by the use of force by the police during the incident.   The Court observed that, although no prior notification had been given to the authorities about the meeting, the police had received intelligence reports that there would be a gathering at that place and on that date. It therefore could not be said that the security forces had been called upon to react without prior preparation. Moreover, there was nothing in the case file to suggest that the demonstrators had presented a danger to public order. The Court also referred to the judgment of the criminal court, which had acquitted the applicants of all charges.   In those circumstances, the Court found that the Turkish Government had failed to provide convincing or credible arguments which could explain or justify the degree of force used against the applicants, whose injuries had been corroborated by medical reports. Those injuries had therefore been the result of treatment for which the State bore responsibility. There had, accordingly, been a violation of Article 3 concerning Ms Kırkoç and Ms Gül.   Article 11   The Court considered that the applicants were negatively affected by the police intervention and the subsequent criminal proceedings brought against them, irrespective of the final result.   It noted, in particular, that the group of demonstrators had consisted of 46 people who wished to draw attention to a topical issue. The rally began at noon and within half an hour had already ended in the group's arrest. The Court was particularly struck by the authorities’ impatience to end the demonstration. It also recalled that the authorities had prior knowledge of that demonstration and could have taken preventive measures.   The Court also found that it was important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings. It considered that the police’s forceful intervention had been disproportionate and had not been necessary for the prevention of disorder, in violation of Article   11.   Articles 7, 17 and 18   Referring to its finding of a violation under Article 11, the Court held unanimously that there was no need to examine separately the applicants’ complaints raised under those articles.     ***   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.