CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 février 2009

.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 } .s6D7B91CE { margin-left:34.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   147 24.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT PROTOPAPA v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Protopapa v. Turkey (application no. 16084/90).   The Court held:   unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention; unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law); unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association); by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Eliade Protopapa, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1937 and lives in Nicosia. She took part in an anti-Turkish demonstration on 19 July 1989 in the Ayios Kassianos area in Nicosia, an area within the United Nations buffer zone.   Ms Protopapa and the Turkish Government provided somewhat differing versions of the events which took place at the time. Ms Protopapa alleged in particular that she had been forcefully grabbed by the hair when arrested by the Turkish police who had then beaten her severely with electric batons, causing her painful injuries. She had then been locked in a stiflingly hot room, received no medical assistance, and had been later taken, amidst a hostile crowd cursing and spitting at her, to a garage where she had been interrogated in Greek. Later that day the District Court of Nicosia in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) had authorised Ms Protopapa’s detention on remand and two days later had heard her in a hearing. She had refused the legal aid offered by the authorities. Ms Protopapa had been sentenced to 2 days in prison, to a fine and to deposit money as a guarantee that she would not breach public peace for a period of one year. Ms Protopapa alleged that, as a result of the ill-treatment to which she had been subjected, her vertebrae had been seriously damaged.   The Turkish Government submitted that Ms Protopapa had participated in a violent demonstration and had been arrested by the Turkish-Cypriot police after she had crossed the UN buffer zone and entered the area under Turkish-Cypriot control.   Ms Protopapa had not been ill-treated, and the force used had been reasonably necessary in the circumstances in order to arrest her.   She had been charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced to a short term of imprisonment. She had offered, but refused, the assistance of a lawyer registered in the “TRNC”. Interpretation services into Greek had been provided at the trial by qualified interpreters.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12   January 1990 and transmitted to the Court on 1   November 1998. By a decision of 26   September 2002 the Court declared the application partly admissible.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Articles   3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and   14, Ms Protopapa complained that she had been ill-treated, unlawfully detained, tried in an unfair trial, convicted of acts which had not constituted a criminal offence, not been able to take part in a peaceful assembly, not had at her disposal a domestic effective remedy capable of redressing the violations of her fundamental rights, and had been discriminated against on the grounds of her ethnic origin and religious beliefs.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court first noted that it was undisputed that the applicant had been arrested during a demonstration which had given rise to an extremely tense situation. It further observed that there had been no evidence showing that the police had used excessive force when arresting Ms   Protopapa, nor that the conditions in which she had been detained had been inadequate. As to her persistent back problems, the Court noted that she had failed to produce medical evidence showing the precise nature of her condition and its probable cause. The Court therefore concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3.   Article 5   The Court found that no evidence that Ms Protopapa had been deprived of her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. On the day after her arrest, she had been brought before the “TRNC” Nicosia District Court and remanded for trial in relation to the offence of illegal entry into “TRNC” territory. The Court observed that Ms Protopapa had been interrogated by an official who spoke Greek and concluded that the reasons for her arrest had been properly brought to her attention during her interrogation. It therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 5.   Article 6   The Court observed that Ms Protopapa had understood the charges and the statements made against her by the witnesses during her trial. She had also been offered the opportunity to use legal aid. The Court further rejected the allegation that the “TRNC” courts as a whole were not impartial and/or independent or that Ms Protopapa’s trial and conviction had been influenced by political aims. The Court therefore held that the criminal proceedings had not been unfair and that there had been no violation of Article 6.   Article 7   The Court noted that Ms Protopapa had been convicted for having entered the territory of the “TRNC” without permission, and that it was not disputed that the relevant law had been in force when she had committed the offence. The Court further found that the law had been sufficiently clear and the penalty imposed had been within the law in force at the time the offence was committed. The Court therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 7.   Article 11   The Court first observed that, according to the UN Secretary General’s report of 7 December 1989 the demonstrators, including Ms Protopapa, had forced their way into the UN buffer zone. The Court then found that the intervention of the Turkish and/or Turkish-Cypriot forces had not been due to the political nature of the demonstration, but had been provoked by its violent character and by the violation of the “TRNC” borders by some of the demonstrators. Consequently, the Court found no violation of Article 11.   Article 13   The Court observed that Ms Protopapa had refused the services of a lawyer practising in the “TRNC”, had made little or no use of the procedural safeguards provided by the “TRNC” Nicosia District Court, had not lodged an appeal against her conviction and had not filed with the local authorities a formal complaint about the ill-treatment she allegedly suffered at the hands of the Turkish-Cypriot police. The Court found no evidence that, had Ms Protopapa made use of all or part of the available remedies, these would have been ineffective and therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 13.   Article 14   In the present case the applicant had failed to prove that she had been treated differently from other persons – namely, from Cypriots of Turkish origin – who had been in a comparable situation. The Court also noted that the applicant’s fundamental rights under Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13 of the Convention had not been infringed, and therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 14.     Judge Bratza expressed a separate opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.