CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA2E08F25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s9E924E36 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#339966 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 }     702 29.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] ERKUŞ v. TURKEY (application no. 30326/03 )   SUSPECTED DESERTER’S DETENTION UNLAWFUL   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 6,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Ergin Erkuş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Izmir (Turkey). In November 2002 Mr Erkuş, a conscript in Kırklareli, failed to return to his army barracks after ten days’ leave. On 22 February 2003 he was arrested in Izmir on suspicion of being a deserter and questioned by the police. On 23 February he was transferred to the Izmir Military Recruitment Office where he was held in a “security room” until 6 March. On 7 March he was transferred to his army base in Kırklareli. On 11 March he was brought before a military court which remanded him in custody. Shortly after he was charged with and convicted of exceeding his leave under the Military Criminal Code and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment; the period spent being transferred and in custody between 22   February and 11 March was deducted from that sentence. That decision became final on 22 April 2003.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article   5   §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Erkuş complained about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention between 22   February and 11 March 2003.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 August 2003 and declared partly inadmissible on 20 May 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court considered that Mr Erkuş had been deprived of his liberty when held in Izmir between 22 February and 7 March 2003: he had been kept in a security room for most of that period, the Government had provided no evidence to show that he had been within the ordinary framework of his army life at that time and subsequently that detention had been deducted from his prison sentence. Furthermore, the parties did not dispute that Mr Erkuş had been deprived of his liberty when taken and held at his army base in Kırklareli between 7 and 11 March 2003.   In the absence of any concrete information or documentation to the contrary, the Court did not find it convincing that the authorities had needed 12 days to organise the applicant’s transfer back to his army base or – as suggested by the Government – to prevent his escape since he was a suspected deserter. Nor did the Court consider it necessary to detain him for a total of 17 days before being brought before a judge. Moreover, the Government had not been forthcoming about either the place or conditions of the applicant’s lengthy detention. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 and that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 5 § 3.     ***   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 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) or Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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.