Açik and Others v. Turkey (31451/03)
| Date | 20090113 |
|---|---|
| Article | 3, 10 |
| Decision | violation |
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in the case of Açik and Others v. Turkey (application no. 31451/03).
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 in respect of Rüya Kurtuluş, Erdinç Gök, Haşim Özgür Ersoy and İnci Açık; and,
- a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention in respect of all the applicants.
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Rüya Kurtuluş, Erdinç Gök, Haşim Özgür Ersoy and İnci Açık 1,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court further held that the finding of a violation of Article 10 constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in English.)
Principal facts
The applicants, İnci Açık, Rüya Kurtuluş, Serpil Ocak, Erdinç Gök, Ayfer Çiçek, Nuri Günay, Haşim Özgür Ersoy and Murat Kaya, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1980, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1980, 1983, 1978 and 1983 respectively and live in Istanbul. They were students at various faculties attached to Istanbul University at the time of the events. They were also members of a group called Istanbul University Students’ Coordination.
On 3 October 2002, during the opening ceremony of the University attended by politicians, businessmen and the press, the applicants, who had staged a protest, were forcefully removed from the conference hall by policemen in plain clothes. Beaten and their arms twisted behind their backs, they were dragged to a police station and arrested.
Several medical reports were drawn up after the arrest finding among other things bruises and lesions on the applicants’ bodies.
The applicants subsequently filed a complaint with the prosecutor against the university security guards and the police in particular for having beaten them in and outside the conference hall. The prosecutor decided not to bring charges against the guards or the police, which was ultimately upheld by the domestic court. In his decision, the prosecutor noted that the applicants had disrupted the ceremony by shouting slogans and raising banners, in breach of public order.
The Government brought no criminal proceedings against the applicants in respect of their protest.
Procedure and composition of the Court
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 July 2003.
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 also Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.
Summary of the judgment
Complaints
The applicants complained in particular that the manner in which they had been arrested on 3 October 2002 constituted inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3, and that their arrest and detention had infringed their freedom of expression in breach of Article 10.
Decision of the Court
Article 3
The Court noted that it was not disputed between the parties that the applicants’ injuries had resulted from the use of force by the guards and the police. However, there was nothing to suggest that the students had been a serious danger to public order: no criminal proceedings had been brought against them; and, the security forces had not encountered any violent resistance while taking them out of the conference hall. In addition, as the incident had taken place during an opening ceremony of the University, the applicants had not been injured in the course of a random operation to which the security forces had been called upon to react without prior preparation. In light of the conclusions of the medical reports, and of the absence of convincing information provided by the Government to justify the degree of force used against the applicants, the Court found a violation of Article 3 for the degrading treatment to which the applicants Rüya Kurtuluş, Erdinç Gök, Haşim Özgür Ersoy and İnci Açık had been subjected and for which the State had been responsible.
Article 10
The Court noted that the applicants had shouted slogans and raised banners, thus disrupting the opening ceremony and, particularly, the speech of the Chancellor of Istanbul University. As such, their protest had no doubt affected negatively the Chancellor’s freedom of expression and caused disturbance and exasperation among some members of the audience, who had the right to receive the information being conveyed to them. However, the Court observed that the applicants had not resorted to insults or violence and had not caused serious public disorder. The Court concluded that the applicants’ protest could have been countered by less draconian measures, for example by denying them re-entry into the conference hall instead of arresting and detaining them. In those circumstances, the Court found that the authorities’ response had been disproportionate to the aims of preventing public disorder or protecting the rights of others and had not been “necessary in a democratic society”, in violation of Article 10.