The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5 November 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Işıl Karakaş, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, Egidijus Kūris, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 February 2010, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Olcay Oğuz, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Ölçer, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 28 October 1994 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 14040/10 Olcay OĞUZ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5 November 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Işıl Karakaş, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, Egidijus Kūris, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 February 2010, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Olcay Oğuz, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Ölçer, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 28 October 1994 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Ibda-C (Great Eastern Islamic Raiders’ Front - İslami Büyükdoğu Akıncılar Cephesi) and taken to the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate.
2 OĞUZ v. TURKEY DECISION 5. On 9 November 1994 the applicant was placed in detention on remand. 6. On the next day, he was examined by a doctor at the Bakırköy branch of the Forensics Medical Institute. The medical report, which was drawn up on 14 November 1994, indicated that the applicant had numerous red patches (erythema) (four measuring 5 x 30 cm on his back, a wider one on his neck and around twenty at the back of both of his upper legs), scars on his legs and pain and numbness on his ankles. The report concluded that the injuries to the applicant were not life-threatening but would prevent him from performing routine activities for a week. 1. Criminal proceedings against the police officers complained of by the applicant 7. On an unspecified date the applicant submitted a complaint to the Istanbul public prosecutor, claiming that he had been ill-treated by certain police officers. 8. On 31 January 1996 the prosecutor issued an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court in respect of four of the officers concerned, accusing them of torture pursuant to Article 243 of the Penal Code (Law no. 765) in force at the time. The prosecutor decided not to prosecute the rest of the officers, stating that they had not been working at the Anti-Terrorist Branch during the time the applicant had been kept in custody. The applicant did not object to that decision. 9. During the course of the criminal proceedings against the four officers, on 20 March 1996 the applicant gave his statements and maintained that he had been hosed with cold water, beaten, sexually harassed, hung by the arms and subjected to electric shocks during his time in police custody. 10. On 6 November 1996 the Istanbul Assize Court acquitted the police officers concerned. 11. The applicant di...