The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 April 2014 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Paul Lemmens, Robert Spano, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 November 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Mehmet Özer, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in İzmir. He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Özveren, a lawyer practising in İzmir. 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3. On 31 December 2007 as the applicant was having dinner with his friends, he received a phone call from his wife informing him that his children were ill. He therefore took his car, and started driving home. On the way, he was stopped by a traffic patrol and was asked to undergo a...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 60449/08 Mehmet ÖZER against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 April 2014 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Paul Lemmens, Robert Spano, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 November 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Mehmet Özer, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in İzmir. He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Özveren, a lawyer practising in İzmir. 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3. On 31 December 2007 as the applicant was having dinner with his friends, he received a phone call from his wife informing him that his children were ill. He therefore took his car, and started driving home. On the way, he was stopped by a traffic patrol and was asked to undergo a breathalyser test. The test indicated 0.64 mg/l of alcohol in his breath. The police officers accordingly issued a traffic fine and the applicant signed it. An examination of the applicant’s criminal record revealed that the applicant had already been caught driving whilst under the influence of alcohol in 2003 and accordingly he was banned from driving for two years pursuant to Article 48/5 of the Traffic Code (Law no. 2918). 4. On 7 January 2008 the applicant applied to the Çine Magistrates’ Court and contested the fine imposed on him. He stated that he had not
2 ÖZER v. TURKEY DECISION consumed any alcohol on the night of the incident and that he had been forced by the officers to sign the fine. He also stated that although he had requested to be taken to a hospital for a blood test, the police officers had refused to do so. 5. During the proceedings, the Çine Magistrates’ Court heard evidence from the applicant, the police officer who had issued the fine, and from the witnesses for the applicant. The police officer stated that the applicant had not asked for a blood test, that he had just signed the fine and left quickly stating that he had to take his children to the hospital. The applicant’s friends were also heard and testified that the applicant had called them after he was stopped by the police. They went to help the applicant and drove him home. In their statement, the applicant’s friends stated that the applicant had not consumed alcohol that night. The court further requested an expert report from the Forensic Medicine Institute relating to the reliability of the applicant’s breathalyser test result. In a report, dated 14 April 2008, the Forensic Medicine Institute indicated that many factors could affect the result of a breathalyser test and that it was possible for the results of a blood test and a breathalyser test to differ. 6. On 25 April 2008 the Magistrate’s Court rejected the applicant’s case. In its decision, the court established that the applica...