CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7C768949 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   677 22.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Beyazgül v. Turkey (application no. 27849/03)       INSUFFICIENT SAFEGUARDS IN LAW ON POLICE BORDER OPERATIONS   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Ahmet Beyazgül, is a Turkish national who was born in 1924 and lives in Van (Turkey). His application was also lodged on behalf of his wife.   On 19 September 2001 their son, Haşim, who was 21, was killed in the region bordering Iran. Gendarmes on duty in that area, where illegal trafficking of fuel was taking place, came across suspicious individuals. The latter fled in response to warning shots fired by commandant A.K., who then shot in their direction.   On the following day gendarmes, alerted by villagers, discovered the body of Haşim, buried under half a metre of earth, by. According to the autopsy report, death had resulted from a gunshot wound and destruction of the central nervous system.   On 23 November 2001 A.K. was charged with homicide committed in excess of his duties, and acquitted of that charge by the Assize Court in a judgment of 11 February 2004 in which the behaviour of A.K. was considered in accordance with the law in force at the relevant time.   That judgment was overturned by the Court of Cassation, and on 13 June 2007 the Assize Court reached the same findings as in its judgment of 11 February 2004. The case is currently pending before the Court of Cassation.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 2 of the Convention (right to life), Mr Beyazgül complained, among other things, about the legislation in force at the relevant time, which permitted gendarmes to open fire with no regard to the proportionality of such an act.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 August 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey) , judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Smuggling (Prevention and Inspection) Act (Law no. 1918), in force at the relevant time, authorised the firing of shots at any individual within the security zones, whether or not they were in possession of a weapon, if they refused to comply with warning shots.   The Act did not therefore offer the required level of protection against the real and immediate risk to life that could arise in police operations.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2. It also held that no separate issue arose under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment).     *** This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site( http://www.echr.coe.int).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.