CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 février 2010

.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 } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .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 }   105 9.2.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Cemalettin Canli v. Turkey (no. 2) (application no. 26235/04)     ILL-TREATMENT DURING ARREST OF A DEMONSTRATOR AND THE LACK OF AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION VIOLATED THE CONVENTION   Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights       Principal facts   The applicant, Cemalettin Canlı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Ankara. At 2 p.m. on 23 August 2003 he was arrested and taken into police custody for breaching the Public Meetings and Demonstrations Act while taking part in a demonstration organised by the Confederation of Public-Sector Workers’ Unions in Ankara. The police had informed the participants that the demonstration was illegal and had called on them to disperse. Faced with resistance on the part of the demonstrators, the police used force to arrest some of them, including the applicant. The participants, who were armed with sticks, responded by throwing stones.   Following his arrest Mr Canlı was subjected to two medical examinations, which showed that he was suffering from injuries leaving him unfit to work for three days. He was released on 24 August 2003.   On 12 November 2003 Mr Canlı lodged a complaint against the police officers who had arrested him, alleging ill-treatment. On 12 December 2003 the prosecutor ruled that there was no case to answer, merely noting that the applicant had taken part in an unauthorised demonstration in the course of which the security forces, faced with the demonstrators’ refusal to disperse, had been obliged to use force in accordance with the Public Meetings and Demonstrations Act. An appeal by the applicant against this decision was dismissed by the Sincan Assize Court on 23 February 2004.   Criminal proceedings were also opened against the applicant for breach of the Public Meetings and Demonstrations Act, but he was acquitted by the Ankara Criminal Court on 8   December 2005.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 3, Mr Canlı complained primarily of the ill-treatment inflicted by the police officers during the demonstration and alleged that the investigation against the police officers in question had been ineffective.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 June 2004.   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), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and Sally Dollé , Section Registrar     Decision of the Court   It was not disputed by the parties that the police officers had used force when arresting demonstrators, including the applicant. After his arrest he had undergone medical examinations; the majority of the injuries found could be considered to have resulted from the force used by police officers during the demonstration. The Court was required to consider whether such a measure had been necessary. On this point, however, it noted that the Government had not established with certainty the exact circumstances of Mr Canlı’s arrest or shown that the force used had been necessary. The violence committed by the security forces had been even less justified given that it was not alleged that the applicant had acted in a violent manner and had thus provoked the forceful intervention on the part of the police officers.     The Court then examined whether an effective investigation had been conducted, as required, into the treatment inflicted on Mr Canlı. It noted that the finding that there was no case to answer, which ended the criminal proceedings against the police officers, had referred primarily to the Public Meetings and Demonstrations Act, providing for police intervention during demonstrations, without however examining whether there had been circumstances which might have made necessary the use of force against Mr Canlı.   In view of the ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Canlı and the ineffective nature of the investigation in that respect, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 12,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or 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) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.