CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 septembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7015FBD8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; font-size:11pt } .s30666B60 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sECD123DC { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } 677 21.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Gülizar Tuncer v. Turkey (application no. 23708/05)   need for force used against demonstrator not established   Unanimously     Two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Gülizar Tuncer, a lawyer, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul. On 22 December 2001 she took part in a gathering organised outside a post office in Istanbul to send postcards to women detainees in F-type prisons [2] and make a statement to the press.   The police dispersed the gathering, with violence, according to the applicant. An official medical report drawn up that same evening indicated that Mrs Tuncer had a small cut on her upper lip and a sore head and neck.   The applicant lodged a complaint, but the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officers concerned, on the grounds that in spite of police warnings, Mrs Tuncer had joined in an illegal gathering. He considered that the police had merely used the force they were legally entitled to use under the law governing public meetings and demonstrations.   The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against that decision, alleging that she had been dragged on the ground, pulled by the hair, beaten and insulted, and that the police had intervened without any warning. She argued that the prosecution had not gathered any evidence, or taken any notice of the medical report, or carried out an investigation to determine exactly what had happened even though, according to the applicant, the police intervention had been filmed.   In January 2002 the applicant and 36 others were charged with having taken part in an illegal demonstration. The applicant was acquitted in June 2002 on the grounds that she had committed no offence.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained about the violence used by the police to disperse the gathering and the lack of an effective investigation into the matter. Under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complained that she had not had an opportunity to prove her allegations, her complaint against the police having been dismissed. Relying also on Articles 7 (no punishment without law), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs Tuncer complained that she had been prosecuted for conduct which did not amount to an offence, and that the police intervention while she was making her statement to the press had interfered with her freedom of thought and of expression. Lastly, she complained that her arrest and remand in custody had been in breach of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 June 2005. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), Judges ,   and also Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Turkish Government submitted that the physical force used against Mrs Tuncer had been in proportion with her conduct, that the demonstration had been illegal and that the demonstrators – the applicant included – had refused to disperse. Mrs Tuncer contended that, on the contrary, the police had intervened without any warning just as the demonstrators were about to disperse.   The Court noted that the applicant had been acquitted of the charge of participating in an illegal demonstration, that she was not a dangerous person and had not been armed, and that the demonstration had been a peaceful one. Furthermore, there was no indication that Mrs Tuncer had behaved so aggressively as to warrant the use of force to control her. The Court reiterated that dispersing a crowd was not sufficient reason in itself to explain violent blows to the heads and faces of demonstrators, and that the public nature of such treatment was enough to make the victim feel deeply humiliated, even if the humiliation was not obvious to others.   The Turkish Government had therefore not demonstrated that the applicant’s behaviour had made the use of force strictly necessary or that such force had been necessary to disperse the crowd. This use of force had indubitably caused Mme Tuncer suffering that amounted to inhuman treatment for which the State was responsible. The Court found a violation of Article 3.   Concerning the investigation carried out by the authorities, the Court noted that the public prosecutor had dismissed the case without even questioning the applicant or the police officers, or viewing the video recordings made by the national television channels. The courts had simply referred to the relevant law, without examining the proportionality of the force used and without attempting to explain the origin of the wound on Mrs Tuncer’s face, even though she claimed that she had not resisted the police. The Court pointed out, however, that it had already found that, in view of the key role, the prosecuting authorities played in instituting proceedings they could legitimately have been expected to verify the conformity of the offending intervention with the other legal provisions applicable in the matter.   The Court therefore found that there had also been a violation of Article 3 concerning the insufficient and ineffective investigation.   In view of the reasons that led to that finding, the Court held that no separate issue arose under Article 13.   Other complaints (allegations of prosecution for actions which did not amount to an offence)   The Court examined these complaints under Article 11 and held that they were to be dismissed as out of time, Mrs Tuncer’s application having been lodged three years after the end of the criminal proceedings brought against her for participating in an illegal demonstration.   Article 41   By way of just satisfaction, the Court held that Turkey was to pay Mrs Tuncer 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,260 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. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site . To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Emma Hellyer (telephone: +33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 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 Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution. [2] Under the new prison regulations these prisons have living units for one to three detainees.