Saya and Others v. Turkey (4327/02)
| Date | 20081007 |
|---|---|
| Article | 3, 11 |
| Decision | violation |
Five applicants) Violation of Article 3 (treatment)
Violation of Article 3 (investigation)
Violation of Article 11
Saya and Others v. Turkey (no. 4327/02)
The applicants are 11 Turkish nationals who live in Adıyaman (Turkey).
On 30 April 1999 the Adıyaman Governor authorised the holding of May Day celebrations in the Adıyaman Amphitheatre. On 1 May 1999 a group of people, including the applicants, started to walk towards the amphitheatre for the celebrations. They were stopped by police officers. Stating that they had obtained prior authorisation, the group attempted to continue its march. The police then intervened to disperse the group; the applicants were allegedly injured during this incident as a result of the force used by the police. The applicants were arrested, taken to the hospital, where they were examined by a doctor, and then taken into custody. They were released the next day. After examining a video recording of the incident, the Adıyaman Public Prosecutor delivered a decision not to prosecute 70 demonstrators, including the applicants.
The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that the police used excessive force to arrest them and that the authorities did not carry out an effective, independent and impartial investigation into their allegation. They relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation), 6 (right to a fair trial), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).
The Court observed that six of the applicants, Zeynep Saya, Hasan Ölgün, Müslüm Atasoy, Zöhre Taş, Nedim Çifçi and Hediye Kilinç were examined by a doctor on the day of the incident and that the ensuing reports did not indicate any signs of ill-treatment on their bodies. As those applicants had not submitted any further medical reports in support of their allegations, the Court found that there was nothing in the case file to prove that the applicants had been injured as alleged during the incident and declared that part of their complaint inadmissible.
However, concerning the other five applicants, Şeyho Saya, Çetin Taş, Akın Doğan, Ali Murat Bilgiç and Bahattin Barış Bilgiç, the Court found that the Turkish Government had failed to justify the degree of force used against the applicants, whose injuries were corroborated by medical reports. As a result, it concluded that the injuries sustained by those five applicants had been the result of treatment for which the State was responsible. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of Mr Şeyho Saya, Mr Çetin Taş, Mr Akın Doğan, Mr Ali Murat Bilgiç and Mr Bahattin Barış Bilgiç.
A further violation of this Article, in respect of all applicants, was found on account of the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. The Court considered that no separate issue arose under Articles 6 and 13.
The Court considered that the police intervention and the subsequent arrest of the applicants for participating in the meeting had constituted, in itself, an interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 11. The Court observed that while the applicants, who had obtained prior authorisation to celebrate May Day, were walking along the pavement, the police stopped them and used force to disperse the group without any prior warning. The Court also noted from the decision not to prosecute that the group had not presented a danger to public order, or engaged in acts of violence. Accordingly, the Court found that the forceful intervention of the police had not been necessary for the prevention of disorder. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11.
In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR 3,000, each, to Mr Şeyho Saya, Mr Çetin Taş, Mr Akın Doğan, Mr Ali Murat Bilgiç and Mr Bahattin Barış Bilgiç; and EUR 1,000, each, to Zeynep Saya, Hasan Ölgün, Müslüm Atasoy, Zöhre Taş, Nedim Çifçi and Hediye Kilinç. (The judgment is available only in English.)