Cemalettin Canlı v. Turkey (22427/04)

The applicant, Cemalettin Canlı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Ankara. In 2003 while criminal proceedings were pending against him, a police report entitled “information form on additional offences” was submitted to the court, mentioning two sets of criminal proceedings brought against him in the past for membership of illegal organisations. However, in 1990, the applicant had been acquitted in the first criminal case and the second set of proceedings had been discontinued. The applicant complained that the records kept by the police and the publication in the national press of the details of those records had had adverse effects on his private life within the meaning of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). He further relied on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

The Court noted that Mr Canlı had never been convicted by a court of law concerning the allegations of membership of illegal organisations. It thus considered that referring to the applicant as a “member” of such organisations in the police report had been potentially damaging to his reputation, and that the keeping and forwarding to the criminal court of that inaccurate police report had constituted an interference with Mr Canlı’s right to respect for his private life. The Court observed that the relevant Regulations obliged the police to include in their records all information regarding the outcome of any criminal proceedings relating to the accusations. Nevertheless, not only had the information in the report been false, but it had also omitted any mention of the applicant’s acquittal and the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings in 1990. Moreover, the decisions rendered in 1990 had not been appended to the report when it had been submitted to the court in 2003. Those failures, in the opinion of the Court, had been contrary to the unambiguous requirements of the Police Regulations and had removed a number of substantial procedural safeguards provided by domestic law for the protection of the applicant’s rights under Article 8. Accordingly, the Court found that the drafting and submission to the court by the police of the report in question had not been “in accordance with the law”. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8, and that there was no need to examine separately the complaints under Articles 6 and 13. Mr Canlı was awarded EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Date	20081118
Article	8
Decision	violation