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 } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .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 858 29.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GÜLŞENOĞLU v. TURKEY HAZIRCI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgments [1] in the cases of Gülşenoğlu v. Turkey (application no. 16275/02) and Hazırcı and Others v.   Turkey (no.   57171/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: in the case of Gülşenoğlu , a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and in the case of Hazırcı and Others , a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention in respect of two of the applicants.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr   Gülşenoğlu 15,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. In the case of Hazırcı and Others , the Court awarded Ms Uluk and Mr Hazırcı EUR   5,000, each, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   Gülşenoğlu The applicant, Can Gülşenoğlu, a Turkish national, was born in 1963 and lives in Montreuil (France). The applicant's brother, Vedathan Gülşenoğlu, was a 19-year-old university student at the relevant time.   On 22 March 1994 Vedathan Gülşenoğlu took part in a demonstration in Istanbul during which he allegedly threw Molotov cocktails at a bank. He was arrested, along with another person, by three traffic police officers, who had been on duty in the neighbourhood.   He was taken to a police station. A few minutes later a shot was heard. It transpired that Vedathan Gülşenoğlu had been shot in the back of his head by A.B., one of the traffic police officers who had arrested him. He was taken to the Taksim hospital, where he died.   On 3 June 1994 A.B. was charged with homicide. Seven years later, in June 2001 he was convicted by the Beyoğlu Assize Court and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. However, on 2 October 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on procedural grounds. On 9 October 2003 Beyoğlu Assize Court once again convicted A.B. of homicide and sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment, following rectification of the procedural defects. On 21 October 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 9   October 2003. The case was subsequently remitted to Beyoğlu Assize Court. The criminal proceedings against A.B. are apparently still pending before the assize court.   Hazırcı and Others The applicants, seven Turkish nationals – Ercan Hazırcı, Sadık Günel, Ercan Başkan, Lütfiye Uluk, Kemal İyit, Uğur Parlak and Erkal Balçık – were born in 1961, 1974, 1971, 1974, 1967, 1962 and 1967 respectively. The first two applicants live in İzmit, the third lives in Germany and the others live in İstanbul.   On 11 January 1998 around 350-400 people gathered at an Alevi meeting place to commemorate the death of members of the TKP ‑ ML/TIKKO [2] . The commemoration turned into a violent clash between some of the participants and the security forces. Thirty-five people were arrested, including the applicants. The applicants were first taken to Sarıgazi Gendarmerie and, later the same day, they were transferred to the İstanbul Provincial Gendarmerie Command.   On various dates between 11 January and 14 January 1998 two gendarmes at Sarıgazi Gendarmerie took the applicants' statements, with the exception of Ercan Başkan who stated that he wished to give his statement before a prosecutor. On 15 January 1998 the applicants were released pending trial.   On various occasions between 12 and 15 January 1998 the applicants were medically examined.   The criminal proceedings brought against the applicants concerning their involvement in the violent clashes on 11 January 1998 ended with their acquittal.   2.     Procedure   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2001 in the case of Gülşenoğlu , and on 17 February 2000 in the case of Hazırcı and Others .   In the case of Gülşenoğlu, 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), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar . In the case of Hazırcı and Others, 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), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   Can Gülşenoğlu alleged principally that the killing of his brother, Vedathan   Gülşenoğlu, constituted a violation of Article 2.   The applicants in the case of Hazırcı and Others complained of a breach of Article 3 on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on them while they were held at the Istanbul Provincial Gendarmerie Command.   Decision of the Court   Gülşenoğlu   Article 2   There was no dispute between the parties that Vedathan Gülşenoğlu had been shot and killed by A.B., the traffic police officer who had arrested him during a demonstration. The Court observed that A.B. had been accused of homicide and had been convicted as charged and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment twice by the first-instance court. Those judgments had been subsequently quashed by the Court of Cassation on grounds of procedural shortcomings and defects in the investigation.   The Court recognised that the proceedings were still pending before Beyoğlu Assize Court. However, having regard to the length of the proceedings, the investigation in question could not be considered prompt and effective for the purposes of the Convention.   Furthermore, there had been important shortcomings in the conduct of the traffic police officer who had chased and arrested the applicant's brother. It was striking that the traffic police officer in question had not searched or handcuffed Vedathan Gülşenoğlu when he had apprehended him. It would also appear irregular that it had been a traffic police officer who had stayed with Vedathan Gülşenoğlu in the interrogation room at the police station. No explanation has been forthcoming from the Government on that point.   In the Court's opinion, the use of lethal force in the case before it fell squarely within the ambit of Article 2, which required any such action to pursue one of the purposes set out in the second paragraph and to be absolutely necessary to that end. As the Court of Cassation had stated in its decision dated 21 October 2004, a number of key factual issues still remained to be determined in this case, in particular whether or not Vedathan Gülşenoğlu had been in possession of a gun as had been alleged. In the absence of any findings in that regard, the Government had failed to provide any convincing explanation for the events.   The Court concluded that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the authorities had failed in their obligations, in violation of Article 2.   Hazırcı and Others   Article 3   Concerning Mr Yiğit and Mr Parlak, the Court found that there was no indication in the case file to demonstrate that they had been subjected to any kind of ill-treatment, the severity of which was above the Article   3 threshold. Their complaint under Article 3 was therefore inadmissible.   Concerning Mr Başkan, Mr Günel and Mr Balçık, the Court noted that the medical reports established at the end of their stay in custody (15 January 1998) found no physical ill ‑ treatment. Moreover they had failed to provide the Court with medical evidence which contradicted the findings of those medical reports. The Court also noted that the applicants had not provided any details as regards the alleged ill-treatment until 12 September 2005, five years after having lodged the application. Those facts lent more credibility to the Government's argument as regards the cause of the injuries recorded in the earlier medical reports of 13 January 1998 particularly since the applicants did not dispute that they had been arrested in the course of a violent demonstration during which the police had used force in order to arrest them. As the material submitted by those applicants was not sufficient to enable the Court to find beyond all reasonable doubt that they had been subjected to treatment which amounted to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, while they were detained at the İstanbul Provincial Gendarmerie Command, it followed that there had been no violation of Article 3.   Concerning Ms Uluk and Mr Hazırcı, as the Turkish Government had failed to provide any plausible explanation for the cause of the injuries referred to in the medical reports drawn up at the end of their time in custody, the Court found that they were the result of treatment for which the Government bore responsibility. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3.     ***   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]   Communist Party of Turkey/ Marxist-Leninist, Turkish Workers’ and Peasants’ Liberation Army. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.