The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Işıl Karakaş, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, Helen Keller, Egidijus Kūris, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 October 2009, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Atalay Öztürk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Muğla prison. He was represented before the Court by Ms Y. Kavak Kılınç, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 54890/09 Atalay ÖZTÜRK against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Işıl Karakaş, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, Helen Keller, Egidijus Kūris, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 October 2009, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Atalay Öztürk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Muğla prison. He was represented before the Court by Ms Y. Kavak Kılınç, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
2 ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY DECISION 3. On 14 November 2005 at 1.05 a.m. the applicant got involved in a bar brawl which resulted in the death of U.K. The applicant was also injured during the incident. Subsequently, he absconded for a short period of time. 4. On the same date, at 9.17 a.m., the applicant called the police and introduced himself as U.K.’s murderer. The transcript of the telephone conversation was reproduced in the incident report (ihbar kayıt tutanağı) made by the police superintendent. It revealed that the applicant had expressed his wish to surrender but had been concerned about the reaction of the deceased’s relatives. 5. Thereafter, at an unspecified time, the applicant surrendered to the police. He was subsequently hospitalised under police guard for the injuries he had sustained during the fight. 6. A medical report drawn up the same day indicated that the applicant had abrasions on his left eyebrow, which had probably been caused by a bullet. It was further noted that there was a bullet hole in his left wrist. 7. At 11.30 a.m. police officers arrived at the hospital and drafted a record of statement (ifade zaptı) quoting the written record of the applicant’s telephone conversation with the police. According to this document, when the applicant had called the police he had stated to the chief police officer that he had gone to the bar looking for a mobile phone that he had lost and he had seen the fight. Some people had attacked him and he had drawn his gun in self-defence. When they had tried to grab the gun from his hand, the gun had gone off accidentally during the struggle. The record of statement further revealed that subsequent to his phone call, police officers had met with the applicant in Izmir. He had then been brought to the hospital, where his left eyebrow had been sutured and his broken left arm had been encased in plaster. After being reminded of his rights, the applicant had had a...