This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. TÜRKAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Türkan v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Antonella Mularoni, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 28 August 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 33086/04) 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, Mr Mahfuz Türkan (“the applicant”), on 9 July 2004. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms K. Doğru, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF TÜRKAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 33086/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 September 2008 FINAL 18/12/2008 This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.
TÜRKAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Türkan v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Antonella Mularoni, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 28 August 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 33086/04) 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, Mr Mahfuz Türkan (“the applicant”), on 9 July 2004. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms K. Doğru, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3. The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and that there were no effective remedies in domestic law in respect of his grievances under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention. 4. On 11 September 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 5. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Batman. 6. At the material time he was working at a tea shop at the Esenler Bus Terminal in Istanbul. On 5 July 1998 he was arrested by police officers for
2 TÜRKAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT his alleged involvement in a fight and causing a disturbance while drunk. He was then taken to the police station inside the terminal building. 7. The police officers allegedly covered the applicant’s head with his coat and started kicking, punching and beating him. They strangled him and banged his head against the wall. They also allegedly threatened the applicant and swore at him. 8. The applicant was released the next day without being brought before the public prosecutor. 9. On 8 July 1998 the applicant applied to the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey for the treatment of his injuries resulting from his ill-treatment in police custody. His symptoms included pain in the left side of the chest and back, and restricted movement of the left arm. 10. On 13 July 1998 the applicant underwent a full bone scintigraphy (scan) at the Marmara Nuclear Medicine Centre. The scintigraphy report concluded that there were hyperactive areas in the soft tissue of the sixth left rib, left shoulder, right knee, ankles and cranium...