This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. ÇAMDERELİ v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Çamdereli v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Antonella Mularoni, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 June 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 28433/02) 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, Mrs Fatma Çamdereli (“the applicant”), on 4 May...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF ÇAMDERELİ v. TURKEY (Application no. 28433/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 July 2008 FINAL 01/12/2008 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
ÇAMDERELİ v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Çamdereli v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Antonella Mularoni, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 June 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 28433/02) 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, Mrs Fatma Çamdereli (“the applicant”), on 4 May 2002. 2. The applicant was represented by Mrs N. Bener, a lawyer practising in Bursa. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3. On 11 June 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application 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 4. The applicant, a housewife, was born in 1953 and lives in Bursa. A. The alleged ill-treatment 5. In her application form the applicant submitted that on 18 February 1999, upon a complaint of Mr M.A.G., gendarmes had taken her to the
2 ÇAMDERELİ v. TURKEY JUDGMENT Görükle gendarmerie station where she was beaten with a truncheon and sworn at by a gendarme. 6. According to the report drafted by the gendarmes and signed by the applicant, upon the complaint of Mr M.A.G., that she was, inter alia, throwing garbage from her balcony and swearing at him, the gendarmes had arrived at the scene of the incident where they found the applicant to be shouting and disturbing the peace. The applicant had had to be taken to the gendarmerie station as she had failed to stop making a commotion. At the station, she had been orally warned not to disturb her neighbours and then released, since Mr M.A.G. did not wish to lodge an official complaint. In the same report it is stated that the gendarmerie station is situated 150-200 metres from the scene of the incident and that the gendarmes were well acquainted with the applicant due to numerous complaints brought against her by her neighbours regarding her unstable behaviour. B. The criminal proceedings 7. On 19 February 1999 the applicant filed an official complaint with the Bursa public prosecutor about the above events and requested the prosecution ...