CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 décembre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sEDF00F56 { margin-left:18pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-family:serif; list-style-position:inside } .s90404E59 { width:6.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   902   14.12.2000 Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GÜL v. TURKEY     The European Court of Human Rights has notified in writing judgment in the case of Gül v. Turkey. The Court held:       unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the death of Mehmet Gül;     unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure of the Turkish authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the death of Mehmet Gül;     by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded, unanimously, 35,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for pecuniary damage and GBP 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage to Mehmet Gül’s widow and children, GBP 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant and GBP 21,000 for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The case concerns an application brought by a Turkish national, Mehmet Gül, who was born in 1944 and is resident in Bozova.   The Court accepted the facts found by the Commission, following a fact-finding mission in Turkey.   During the night of 7-8 March 1993, a special operations team, which was taking part in a house search operation in Bozova, arrived at the apartment block occupied by the applicant and his two sons, Mustafa and Mehmet Gül, and their families. Officers knocked on the door of the apartment where the applicant’s son Mehmet Gül lived with his wife and three children. While Mehmet Gül was behind the door in the process of unbolting the lock, three officers opened fire. Mehmet Gül was hit by numerous bullets and collapsed. He was carried by the applicant to the hospital, where he was declared dead.   On 17 March 1993, the Bozovan public prosecutor issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction. An investigation was carried out by an inspector appointed on behalf of the provincial administrative council, which concluded on 21 October 1993 that the police officers should not be prosecuted. On 18 April 1995, the Supreme Administrative Court annulled that decision and ordered the institution of criminal proceedings. On 9 September 1996, the Şanliurfa Criminal Court acquitted the three officers on the basis that, according to an expert report, they had not been at fault.           2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 August 1993. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission took evidence in February 1999. It adopted a report on 27 October 1999 in which it expressed the opinion unanimously that that there had been a violation of Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. It referred the case to the Court on 30 October 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Georg Ress (German), President , Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Volodymyr Butkeyvch (Ukrainian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), John Hedigan (Irish), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian),   judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge ,   and also Vincent Berger, Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaints   Mr Gül complained that his son had been killed by police officers (Article 2) and of the lack of an effective investigation (Article 2 and 13).   Decision of the Court   Article 2   i. The death of Mehmet Gül   The Court recalled its constant case-law that it must subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny.   It was undisputed that Mehmet Gül had died as the result of bullet wounds inflicted when three police officers opened fire on the door behind which he stood. There was insufficient evidence concerning the planning of the operation to establish that they were under instructions to use lethal force or that this was the predetermined purpose of the operation. It was satisfied however that the police officers used a disproportionate degree of force. While Mehmet Gül was unlocking the door, the three police officers opened fire in one long, continuous burst, which caused him multiple injuries and destroyed the fingers on one hand. The police officers’ assertion that Mehmet Gül had fired one pistol shot at them was found to be unsubstantiated. The lack of proper recording of the alleged finding of two guns and a spent cartridge in the flat after the events undermined the credibility of the police evidence in that regard.     In those circumstances, the firing of at least 50-55 shots at the door was not justified by any reasonable belief on the part of the officers that their lives were at risk from the occupants of the flat. Nor could the firing be justified by any consideration of the need to secure entry to the flat. Opening fire with automatic weapons on an unseen target in a residential block inhabited by innocent civilians, women and children was, as the Commission found, grossly disproportionate.   The Court concluded that the use of force by the police officers could not be regarded as “absolutely necessary” for the purpose of defending life. It followed that there had been a violation of Article 2 in that respect.   ii. Alleged inadequacy of the investigation   While an investigation into the incident was carried out by the public prosecutor, there were a number of significant omissions, including: no attempt to find the bullet allegedly fired by Mehmet Gül at the police officers, no proper recording of the alleged finding of two guns and a spent cartridge inside the flat, no photograph taken of the weapons at the alleged location, no testing of Mehmet Gül’s hands for traces that would link him with the gun and no testing of the gun for prints.   Further, although the actions of the officers involved required careful and prompt scrutiny by the responsible authorities, the public prosecutor did not take any statements from them. Nor were the officers required to account for the use of their weapons and ammunition.   As regards the investigation by the administrative council, the Court noted its previous findings that the investigations undertaken by administrative councils into killings by security forces failed to satisfy the requirements of an independent investigation, in particular since the council and the officers under investigation were both hierarchically subordinate to the governor (see the Güleç v. Turkey judgment of 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p.1732-1733, §§ 80-82).   The Court considered whether the criminal proceedings cured the defects in the investigation into the events up to that date. The criminal court heard evidence from the three officers charged, who gave brief statements. It called no other witnesses. The applicant and members of his family were not informed that the proceedings were taking place and were not afforded the opportunity of telling the court their very different version of events. The court requested two expert opinions (from a gendarme lieutenant and from police experts) which contained an evaluation of events based on the assumption that the police officers’ account was the correct one. They both reached conclusions as to the lack of fault of the officers which were based on that general evaluation rather than on any findings of technical expertise. The court’s decision to acquit the three officers was based entirely on the second opinion that there was no fault. There was no reasoning as to why the police officers’ account was preferred to that of the family. In basing itself without any additional explanation on the experts’ legal classification of the officers’ actions, the court in this case effectively deprived itself of its jurisdiction to decide the factual and legal issues of the case.   The Court accordingly found that the authorities had failed to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of Mehmet Gül’s death and held that there had been a violation of Article 2 in this respect.   Article 13   As there was an arguable claim of a violation of Article 2, the authorities were under an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of Mehmet Gül’s death. However, no effective criminal investigation could be considered to have been conducted for the reasons given above. The applicant was thereby denied an effective remedy in respect of his son’s death and access to any other available remedies, including a claim for compensation.     Article 41   As regarded pecuniary damage, it awarded GBP 35,000 in respect of Mehmet Gül’s widow and children. It awarded, by way of non-pecuniary damage, GBP 20,000 to his widow and children and GBP 10,000 to the applicant. For costs and expenses, it awarded GBP 21,000.   Judge Gölcüklü expressed a dissenting opinion and this is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.