This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. ÇAĞLAYAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Çağlayan v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President, Elisabet Fura-Sandström, Corneliu Bîrsan, Alvina Gyulumyan, Egbert Myjer, Ineta Ziemele, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 September 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 30461/02) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Erol Çağlayan (“the applicant”), on 10 June 2002. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms H. Demir, a lawyer practising in Muğla....
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF ÇAĞLAYAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 30461/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21 October 2008 FINAL 21/01/2009 This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.
ÇAĞLAYAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Çağlayan v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President, Elisabet Fura-Sandström, Corneliu Bîrsan, Alvina Gyulumyan, Egbert Myjer, Ineta Ziemele, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 September 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 30461/02) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Erol Çağlayan (“the applicant”), on 10 June 2002. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms H. Demir, a lawyer practising in Muğla. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3. The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his detention in police custody and that there were no effective domestic remedies in respect of his grievances. He also raised complaints under Articles 6 and 11 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 4. On 30 August 2007 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the alleged ill-treatment and ineffectiveness of the domestic remedies to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Muğla.
2 ÇAĞLAYAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 6. The applicant is a member of the Haber-Sen, a trade union formed by public employees. He is also a member of the Confederation of Public Employees’ Trade Unions (Kamu Emekçileri Konfederasyonu – “KESK”). 7. On 29 October 1997 the applicant was arrested in Muğla and taken to the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Muğla Security Directorate on charges of having insulted a police officer. He had allegedly attempted to resist arrest. During his detention in police custody, the applicant was allegedly beaten up, slapped and threatened with death by the police officers. 8. On the same day, the applicant was taken to the Emergency Service of Muğla State Hospital, where he was examined by a doctor. In his report, the doctor indicated the presence of hyperaemia on the applicant’s cheeks and another red mark measuring 10 cm x 10 cm on his back. The doctor concluded that the injuries in question (hyperaemia) would heal in three days and would not render the applicant unfit for work. 9. ...