Çamdereli v. Turkey (28433/02)
| Date | 20080717 |
|---|---|
| Article | 3 |
| Decision | violation |
CHAMBER JUDGMENT ÇAMDERELİ v. TURKEY
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in the case of Çamdereli v. Turkey (application no. 28433/02).
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mrs Çamdereli 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)
1. Principal facts
The applicant, Fatma Çamdereli, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Bursa (Turkey).
The case concerned Ms Çamdereli’s complaint that she was ill-treated by a gendarme and that the ensuing criminal proceedings against him were subsequently dropped.
On 18 February 1999 the applicant was taken to her local gendarmerie station following a dispute with her neighbour. The next day she filed a complaint with the Bursa Public Prosecutor alleging that a gendarme had ill-treated her the day before, and requested a medical examination.
The same day the applicant was examined by a doctor who reported that she had bruising to her shoulders, arms and right thigh which rendered her unfit for work for ten days.
Having heard evidence from the applicant and the accused gendarme, the Bursa Prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against the gendarme.
In December 2000 Bursa Criminal Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Law no. 4616, that the proceedings against the accused gendarme should be suspended and subsequently discontinued if no offence of the same or a more serious kind was committed within a five-year period. The applicant’s objection was dismissed and the criminal proceedings against the gendarme were dropped in 2006.
Meanwhile, the applicant sought compensation for the ill-treatment to which she had been subjected. In December 2002, Bursa Civil Court of First Instance found it established that the applicant had been beaten at the gendarmerie station and ordered the gendarme responsible for the applicant’s injuries to pay her approximately EUR 904.
2. Procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 May 2002.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President,
Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese),
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian),
Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian),
Dragoljub Popović (Serbian),
András Sajó (Hungarian),
Işıl Karakaş (Turkish), judges,
and also Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.
3. Summary of the judgment2
Complaints
The applicant complained that she was ill-treated by a gendarme and that the criminal proceedings concerning the incident were inadequate. She relied, in particular, on Article 3.
Decision of the Court
Article 3
The Court noted that the focal point of applicant’s complaints concerned the inadequacy of the criminal proceedings which had resulted in the gendarme responsible for her ill-treatment having been granted virtual impunity. The Court considered that, in such a case, an award of compensation to the victim had not been sufficient to provide redress for wilful ill-treatment by State agents.
It underlined that the degree of bruising established by the doctor had indicated that the applicant’s injuries had been sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment under Article 3. Even if the investigation had been launched promptly and had led to the committal for trial of the accused gendarme, he had not been suspended from duty during that period. Moreover, the criminal proceedings had not produced any result due to the application of Law no. 4616, which had allowed those proceedings to be suspended and the charges against the accused gendarme to be subsequently dropped.
The Court had already found in a number of cases that, in such a context, the Turkish criminal law system had had no dissuasive effect capable of ensuring the effective prevention of unlawful acts perpetrated by agents of the State.
In conclusion, the measures taken by the authorities in the applicant’s case had not provided her with appropriate redress for the ill-treatment to which she had been subjected, in violation of Article 3.