The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 February 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Julia Laffranque, President, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Paul Lemmens, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 February 2008, 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 Mehmet Nuri Tanış, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1975 and who is currently serving a prison sentence at the Bolu F-Type Prison. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Demir, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent. 2 TANIŞ v. TURKEY DECISION The...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 15442/08 Mehmet Nuri TANIŞ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 February 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Julia Laffranque, President, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Paul Lemmens, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 February 2008, 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 Mehmet Nuri Tanış, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1975 and who is currently serving a prison sentence at the Bolu F-Type Prison. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Demir, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.
2 TANIŞ v. TURKEY DECISION The circumstances of the case 1. The events of 31 October 2006 and the applicant’s ensuing medical examination 2. The events that gave rise to the present application are disputed between the parties. They will therefore be presented separately. (a) The applicant’s version of the events 3. On 31 October 2006 the applicant received a parcel at the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison (“the Tekirdağ Prison”), where he was serving his sentence at the material time. As he was being taken to the parcel room by a prison guard, he greeted a fellow inmate in the corridor, without making any physical contact. The guard reacted to their brief interaction by mocking and insulting the applicant. The applicant did not respond to the guard. 4. Once they reached the parcel room, the guard ordered the applicant to wait outside and the applicant complied. The guard then shouted at him to move further away from the door and to stand against the wall, following which he pushed the applicant forcefully against the wall. In response, the applicant told the guard that he had no right to touch him, at which point the guard allegedly started punching the applicant in the face and kicking his feet while shouting insults at him. Although the applicant restrained himself from hitting back and sought only to protect his face with his hands, the guard called on his colleagues to intervene, claiming that the applicant was attacking him. A number of other guards in the vicinity ran towards them and started hitting the applicant as well. The applicant stated that his inmate friend, M.Ö., and the prison governor, who were in the parcel room at the relevant time, had witnessed the events. 5. After the applicant had collected his parcel, he was taken to single occupancy cell A-T-10, where he was “lynched” by a group of guards, who also insulted and threatened him. The blows he received at that time left him with a broken nose, cuts to his lips, serious wounds on his knee, swellings of various sizes on differe...