This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form. SATIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Satık and Others v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: MRS E. PALM, President, MRS W. THOMASSEN, MR GAUKUR JÖRUNDSSON, MR J. CASADEVALL, MR T. PANŢÎRU, MR R. MARUSTE, judges, MR F. GÖLCÜKLÜ, ad hoc judge, and Mr M. O’BOYLE, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 31 August 1999 and 19 September 2000, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 31866/96) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF SATIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Application no. 31866/96) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 October 2000 FINAL 10/01/2001 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form.
SATIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Satık and Others v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: MRS E. PALM, President, MRS W. THOMASSEN, MR GAUKUR JÖRUNDSSON, MR J. CASADEVALL, MR T. PANŢÎRU, MR R. MARUSTE, judges, MR F. GÖLCÜKLÜ, ad hoc judge, and Mr M. O’BOYLE, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 31 August 1999 and 19 September 2000, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 31866/96) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by ten Turkish nationals, Mr Kadir Satık, Mr Murat Satık, Mr Ali Haydar Özdemir, Ms Songül Diribaş, Mr Fesih Yılmaz, Ms Saime Sefer, Mr Yaşar Yağcı, Mr Terzan Adıbelli, Mr Mehmet Ermiş, and Mr Abdülkadir Eraslan (“the applicants”), on 26 July 1995. 2. The applicants were represented by Mr Tuncer Fırat, a lawyer practising in İzmir (Turkey). The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. 3. The applicants alleged that they were severely beaten by prison staff and gendarmes following their refusal to submit to a search procedure before being taken to court. They relied on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. 4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5. The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court. Mr Rıza Türmen, the judge elected in respect of Turkey, withdrew from sitting in the case
2 SATIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY JUDGMENT (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr Feyyaz Gölcüklü to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 6. By a decision of 31 August 1999 the Chamber declared the application admissible. 7. The applicants alone filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). By letter dated 7 August 2000 the Government submitted supplementary information of a factual nature. The Chamber decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule ...