BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF HAKAN DUMAN v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 28439/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23
March 2010
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Hakan Duman v.
Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş,
judges,
and Sally Dollé,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 2 March 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 28439/03) 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 Hakan Duman
(“the applicant”), on 12 May 2003.
- The
applicant was represented by Mrs N. Bener, a lawyer practising in
Bursa. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent.
- On
9 January 2009 the President of the Second Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Bursa.
- The
applicant had been previously convicted of burglary on 21 March
2001 and his prison sentence had been commuted to a fine.
- On
11 January 2002 at approximately 12.40 a.m. the applicant was
arrested, together with a friend, and taken into custody on suspicion
of having committed several burglaries. The arrest was effected on
the basis of incriminating information received regarding the
applicant and his friend.
- Later,
at approximately 2.40 a.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor,
who noted a 2 x 2 cm graze on his left shoulder and a graze under his
right knee.
- It
appears that at some point the applicant and his friend confessed
to committing a number of burglaries and, as a result, on 11 and
12 January 2002, were required to participate in a number of
reconstructions of events. According to the record drafted by police
officers and signed by the applicant, the latter indicated one by one
the houses and other premises he had broken into, the times of the
incidents, the methods used to enter the buildings and the exact
amount of goods which had been stolen from each place.
- On
11 January 2002 the police heard evidence from the applicant's
father. It appears from Mehmet Duman's police statement and the
seizure report drafted on that day that the applicant's father helped
the police recover two stolen guns, one from his own basement and
another near a bus stop, on the basis of information he had received
from a certain Mr H.P., who had participated in burglaries with
his son.
- On
12 and 13 January 2002 the police heard evidence from the owner of
one of the guns and the person to whom the suspects had sold it.
- In
the meantime, on an unspecified date, the applicant signed a
pre printed form explaining the rights of arrested
persons, including the right to remain silent and the right to legal
assistance.
- On
13 January 2002 the applicant was questioned by two police officers
in respect of five incidents he had confessed to during the
reconstruction of events. According to the verbatim records signed by
the applicant, he was reminded of his legal rights, including
his right to remain silent and his right to legal assistance.
- On
the same day the applicant's friend was also questioned. He admitted
committing two offences with the applicant. The statements provided
by him regarding these incidents were worded in similar fashion to
the applicant's statements.
- Between
11 January and 14 January 2002, the police
heard evidence from the owners of the houses and businesses which had
been robbed. It appeared that some of the owners had not made any
prior complaints to the police about the burglaries committed in
their houses.
- On
14 January 2002 the police returned a watch found on the applicant's
friend to its owner.
- On
14 January 2002, on the release of the applicant from police custody,
the Bursa Forensic Medicine Institute issued a medical report
indicating that no signs of beating or violence had been observed on
his body and that the applicant did not have any complaints.
- On
the same date the Bursa Magistrates' Court heard evidence from the
applicant. According to the minutes of the hearing he was reminded of
his legal rights and his statements to the police were read out to
him and accepted by him. He further stated that, at that juncture, he
did not remember with whom and where he had committed the burglaries.
The reports and other documents in the case file were read out to
him. The applicant did not contest their veracity.
- On
21 February 2002 the Bursa public prosecutor filed a bill of
indictment against the applicant with the Bursa Criminal Court,
accusing him of having committed five burglaries.
- At
the hearing held on 28 February 2002, the applicant retracted his
earlier statements, claiming that when he had given evidence to the
Bursa Magistrates' Court he had been in custody for more than six
days, during which time he had been electrocuted, hosed and beaten
with a stick in order to force him to confess to the offences. The
applicant claimed that he did not remember how he had been brought
before the Bursa Magistrates' Court and that before the judge he had
just sat there while the verbatim record was written, which he had
not signed. The court heard evidence from the other accused and five
complainants, who all stated that the accused had accepted the
accusations during the reconstruction of events.
- In
the hearing held on 25 April 2002, the prosecutor submitted his
opinion on the merits. The applicant's legal representative submitted
that some of the evidence in the case file had been unlawfully
obtained.
- At
the hearing held on 2 May 2002, the applicant reiterated that he did
not accept the charges against him. When asked about the medical
reports, the reports of the reconstruction of events and the arrest
and seizure form, the applicant submitted that he had nothing to say.
- On
9 May 2002 the Bursa Criminal Court, relying on the evidence in the
case file and, in particular, on the statements made by the applicant
and Mr I.Ö. before the police and the Magistrates' Court,
found the applicant guilty as
charged and sentenced him in total to nine years, two months and five
days' imprisonment.
- On
27 May 2002 the applicant appealed against the trial court's
judgment. In particular, he claimed that there was no evidence to
demonstrate his guilt and that his statements to the police had been
written in accordance with the complainants' testimonies. The
applicant submitted that he had not been reminded of his legal rights
under Article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that his
statements before both the police and the Magistrates' Court had not
been given of his own free will. In part of his appeal petition the
applicant submitted that he had not been in a fit condition to give a
statement before the Magistrates' Court since he had been exhausted
from the torture, coercion and duress he had been subjected to in
police custody.
- On
26 September 2002 the Court of Cassation, relying on Article 318 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, dismissed the applicant's request for
an oral hearing and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
The opinion of the principal public prosecutor submitted to this
court was not communicated to the applicant.
- On
16 December 2002 the decision of the Court of Cassation was returned
to the registry of the Bursa Criminal Court.
- A
request by the applicant dated 26 December 2002 for a rectification
of the Court of Cassation's judgment was dismissed by the principal
public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation on 19 February 2003.
- On
17 December 2004 the Bursa Criminal Court,
taking into account the relevant provisions of the new
Criminal Code (Law no. 5237), ordered the applicant's release from
prison. By an additional judgment dated 29 June 2005 the
first-instance court adjusted the applicant's sentence in accordance
with the provisions of the new Criminal Code (Law no. 5237).
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time as
well as recent developments can be found in the following judgments:
Kolu v. Turkey (no. 35811/97, §§ 42 and 44, 2
August 2005), Göç v. Turkey judgment ([GC], no.
36590/97, § 34, ECHR 2002-V), and Demirci v. Turkey (no.
21843/02, § 14, 3 June 2008).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
- In
the application form the applicant alluded to having been subjected
to torture while he was held in police custody.
- The
Court considers that the applicant's submission should be examined
under Article 3, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
- The
Government maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic
remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as he
had failed to make proper use of the administrative-law remedy
available to him in domestic law. They further asked the Court to
dismiss this part of the application for failure to comply with the
six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention.
- The
Court considers it unnecessary to determine whether the applicant
exhausted domestic remedies or complied with the six-month rule,
within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, since
this complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following
reasons.
- The
Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported
by appropriate evidence (see, in particular, Tanrıkulu and
Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 45907/99, 22 October 2002). To
assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond
reasonable doubt”, but adds that such proof may follow from the
coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences
or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many other
authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121,
ECHR 2000-IV, and Süleyman Erkan v. Turkey, no.
26803/02, § 31, 31 January 2008).
- In
the instant case the Court observes that the applicant was held in
detention for approximately three days. It further notes that the
medical report issued following his arrest indicated a
2 x 2 cm graze on his left shoulder and a graze under his right knee.
However, the Court observes that the applicant never
specifically set out in his application and subsequent observations
to the Court any details of the alleged ill-treatment which could
confirm or corroborate the minor findings noted in the above medical
report.
- Likewise,
the Court observes that in the course of the criminal proceedings the
applicant, who was assisted by a lawyer, simply claimed in general
terms to have been subjected to torture and ill-treatment, apart from
at the hearing held on 28 February 2002, when
he maintained in general terms that he had been electrocuted, hosed
and beaten with a stick. He did not provide the authorities
with any physical or other identifying details of the alleged
perpetrators. Moreover, the Court
observes that the medical reports drawn up at the end of the
applicant's detention do not contain any indication that he was
physically ill-treated as alleged. The Court is aware that
this report lacks details and falls significantly short of the
standards recommended by the European Committee for the Prevention of
Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), which
are regularly taken into account by the Court in its examination of
cases concerning ill treatment (see, inter alia, Akkoç
v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 118, ECHR
2000-X), as well as the guidelines set out in the Manual on the
Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the Istanbul
Protocol”) submitted to the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights (see Batı and Others v.
Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 100, ECHR 2004 IV
(extracts)). Nevertheless, it notes that there is no material in the
case file which could call into question the findings in this report
or add probative weight to the applicant's allegations. In this
connection, the Court also notes that the applicant did not contest
the medical reports drawn up during his detention and that there is
no indication in the case file that the applicant requested and was
refused permission to see another doctor during or at the end of his
detention.
- Consequently,
the Court considers that the applicant has not submitted any medical
evidence of either physical injuries to his person or mental trauma
consistent with having been tortured and ill-treated as alleged (see,
among other authorities, Yaşar v. Turkey (dec.), no.
55938/00, 22 June 2006; Künkül v. Turkey
(dec.), no. 57177/00, 30 November 2006; S.T. v. Turkey
(dec.), no. 28310/95, 9 November 1999; and, by converse
implication, Mehmet Eren v. Turkey, no. 32347/02, § 43,
14 October 2008).
- Moreover,
the Court considers that a mere allegation of ill-treatment,
without any credible details, is insufficient to constitute an
arguable claim giving rise to a positive obligation. Therefore, the
applicant could not legitimately demand that an in-depth
investigation be carried out into his complaints of ill-treatment
when neither he nor his lawyer had provided the relevant authorities
with a reliable starting-point for their inquiries (see, for example,
Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 33396/02,
30 August 2007).
- In view of the above considerations, the Court finds
that the applicant has not laid the basis of an arguable claim that
he was subjected to ill-treatment in custody. It follows that he has
not made out a case that the authorities failed in their procedural
obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to investigate his claim
(see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, §
117, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII). For these
reasons the complaint is inadmissible as being manifestly ill founded
within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 that the written
opinion of the principal public prosecutor submitted to the Court of
Cassation had not been communicated to him. Under Article 6 § 2
the applicant maintained that his conviction had been based on
unlawful evidence obtained during his detention in police custody.
- The
Court will examine these complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention, which provides, as relevant:
“In the determination ...of any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ...hearing .....”
A. Admissibility
- The Government asked the Court to dismiss the
applicant's complaints as being inadmissible for failure to comply
with the six-month rule because he had failed to lodge his
application within six
months of the date on which the
Court of Cassation had rendered its decision or, alternatively,
within six months of the date of the incident.
- The
Court observes that the Court of Cassation's decision of 26 September
2002 was returned to the registry of the first-instance court on
16 December 2002 and that the application was lodged with the
Court within six months of that date, on 12 May 2003. The
Court therefore rejects the Government's preliminary objection
regarding the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention.
- It
further notes that this part of the application is not inadmissible
on any other grounds and must, therefore, be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Use by the Bursa Criminal Court of statements
allegedly taken unlawfully
a) The parties' observations
- The
Government maintained that the applicant had not been convicted
solely on the basis of his statements since, in convicting the
applicant, the domestic courts had also had regard to the statements
of the co-accused and had evaluated the other evidence.
- The
applicant submitted that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while
in police custody and that the pressure he felt from the police had
continued up until the trial court hearings and after he had hired a
lawyer. In this connection, the applicant submitted that it would
have been illogical for him to incriminate himself. Moreover, he
pointed out that the police had interrogated him prior to informing
him of his rights under domestic law.
b) The Court's assessment
- The
Court reiterates that the taking of evidence is governed primarily by
the rules of domestic law and that it is in principle for the
national courts to assess the evidence before them. The Court's task
under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their
entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair
(see, among other authorities, Edwards v. the United Kingdom,
16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B). All the evidence
must normally be produced in the presence of the accused at a public
hearing with a view to adversarial argument. However, the use as
evidence of statements obtained at the stage of the police inquiry
and the judicial investigation is not in itself inconsistent with
paragraph 1 of Article 6, provided that the rights of the defence
have been respected. On this point, the Court relies on the basic
principles laid down in its judgments concerning the notion of a fair
procedure under Article 6 (see, in particular, Imbrioscia v.
Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275;
Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 131,
ECHR 2005 IV, § 131; Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no.
36391/02, § 55, 27 November 2008; and Jalloh
v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR
2006-...).
- Moreover, the Court reiterates that the privilege
against self incrimination or the right to remain silent are
generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart
of a fair procedure. Their aim is to provide an accused person with
protection against improper compulsion by the authorities and thus to
avoid miscarriages of justice and secure the aims of Article 6 (see
John Murray v. the United Kingdom, 8 February 1996, §
45, Reports 1996-I). This right presupposes that the
prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the
accused without resort to evidence obtained by coercion or oppression
in defiance of the will of the accused (see Jalloh, §
100, and Kolu, § 51, both cited above). Early access to a
lawyer is part of the procedural safeguards to which the Court will
have particular regard when examining whether a procedure has
extinguished the very essence of the privilege against
self-incrimination (see Salduz, cited above, § 54).
- Finally, the Court recalls that Article 6 of the
Convention does not prevent a person from waiving of his own free
will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to certain
guarantees of a fair trial (see Kwiatkowska v. Italy (dec.),
no. 52868/99, 30 November 2000, and Pishchalnikov v. Russia,
no. 7025/04, § 77, 24 September 2009). However, if it is to be
effective for Convention purposes, a waiver of the right to take part
in the trial must be established in an unequivocal manner and be
attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance (see
Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 31, Series A
no. 277-A). Furthermore, it must not run counter to any
important public interest (see Håkansson and Sturesson v.
Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 66, Series A no. 171-A).
The Court has also pointed out that, before an accused can be said to
have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under
Article 6 of the Convention, it must be shown that he could
reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would
be (see Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02,
9 September 2003).
- In
the instant case the applicant was arrested on 11 January 2002 and
taken into police custody, where he remained until 14 January 2002.
It appears that following his arrest the applicant confessed to
committing a number of burglaries, as a result of which he was
required to participate in reconstructions of events during which he
made a number of detailed incriminating statements (see paragraph 8
above). On 13 January 2002 the applicant was
questioned by two police officers in respect of five incidents to
which he had confessed during the reconstruction of events. Finally,
on 14 January 2002 the applicant was brought before a judge
where he accepted, without any further details, his statements given
to the police. On none of these occasions did the applicant
benefit from the assistance of a lawyer. Since, on the basis of the
case file, it cannot be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the
applicant was subjected to ill-treatment or was otherwise coerced
into making statements in police custody, the Court considers that
the examination of this part of the application should be confined to
the use by the trial court of the statements made at the pre trial
stage in the absence of a lawyer (see Öngün v. Turkey,
no. 15737/02, § 32, 23 June 2009).
- In
the instant case the Court observes that, in accordance with the
relevant provisions of the former Code of Criminal Procedure
applicable at the time of the events, namely Articles 135, 136 and
138, the applicant had a right of access to a lawyer from the moment
he was taken into police custody. The Court further notes that when
the applicant was questioned by two police officers on 13 January
2002 and subsequently by the judge at the Bursa Criminal Court on 14
January 2002 he was informed of his legal
rights, including his right to remain silent and his right to
legal assistance, which he appears prima facie to have waived.
However, prior to that time the applicant had already confessed in
circumstances unknown to the Court owing to the absence of a verbatim
record, and had as a consequence participated in a number of
reconstructions of events during which he made detailed incriminating
statements. These statements were later used to convict him. In this
connection, the Court is not convinced that the presence of an
undated, pre-printed and signed document in the case file
demonstrates with certainty that the applicant was properly informed
of his right to a lawyer and his right to remain silent (see
paragraph 11 above) prior to his confession and subsequent
participation in a number of reconstructions of events. In such
circumstances it cannot be said, therefore, that the applicant had
unequivocally and intentionally waived his rights under Article 6
(see, mutatis mutandis, Seyithan Demir v. Turkey,
no. 25381/02, § 41, 28 July 2009, and Savaş
v. Turkey, no. 9762/03, § 70, 8 December 2009).
The fact that the applicant was subsequently informed of his rights
and decided not to act on them immediately does not alter this
finding.
- The
Court further observes that the applicant had access to a lawyer
during the ensuing criminal proceedings, when he had the possibility
of challenging the prosecution's arguments. Nevertheless, in
convicting the applicant, the Bursa Criminal Court gave weight to the
applicant's statements which he had later retracted and which had
been obtained during the pre-trial investigation in the absence of a
lawyer. Neither the assistance subsequently provided by a lawyer nor
the adversarial nature of the ensuing proceedings could cure the
defects which had occurred while the applicant was in custody (see,
in particular, Kolu, cited above, § 62). In this
connection, the Court attaches importance to the fact that, despite
the severity of the applicant's sentence and the fact that the
information obtained from the applicant during the reconstruction of
events served to convict him, there appears to have been no close
scrutiny on the part of the domestic courts as to whether it could be
said that the applicant had unequivocally waived his right to a
lawyer and to remain silent prior to his undocumented confession.
- In
sum, even though the applicant had the opportunity to challenge the
evidence against him at the trial and subsequently on appeal, the
fact that no lawyer was present while he was in police custody, in
the absence of an unequivocal and intentional waiver on his part,
irretrievably damaged his defence rights.
- There
has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention on account of the applicant's conviction on the basis of
statements which had been obtained during the preliminary
investigation in the absence of legal assistance.
2. Unfairness of the proceedings on account of the
non-communication of the written opinion of the principal public
prosecutor at the Court of Cassation
- The
Court notes that it has already examined the same grievance in the
past and has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention (see, in particular, Göç, cited above,
§ 58; Abdullah Aydın v. Turkey (no. 2),
no. 63739/00, § 30, 10 November 2005; and Ayçoban
and Others v. Turkey, nos. 42208/02, 43491/02 and
43495/02, 22 December 2005).
- The
Court has examined the present case and finds no particular
circumstances which would require it to depart from its findings in
the aforementioned cases.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention on account of the non-communication to the applicant of
the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court
of Cassation.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- In
the application form the applicant further complained under
Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention
that there had been no reasonable suspicion warranting his arrest,
that he had not been informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest,
that his detention in police custody had breached the reasonable-time
requirement and that the decision to prolong his detention in police
custody had been taken by the court in his absence. The applicant
further complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 that his
request to be heard by the Court of Cassation had not been granted to
him, that the failure to serve the written decisions of the Court of
Cassation on him had breached his right to a fair trial and that he
had not been asked to sign the statements he had given to the Bursa
Magistrates' Court.
- However,
in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds
that the applicants' submissions outlined above do not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the
application must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly
ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of
the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 150,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary
damage together with statutory interest running from the date of his
arrest.
- The
Government contested the amount.
- Deciding
on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 1,800
in respect of non pecuniary damage.
- It further considers that the most appropriate form of
redress would be the retrial of the applicant in accordance with the
requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should he so
request (see Salduz,
cited above, § 72).
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 15,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court. In support of his claims
the applicant submitted some receipts for postal and translation
costs.
- The
Government contested the amount.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings
and considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 250 for the
proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
- The Court considers it appropriate that the default
interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European
Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares admissible the complaints under Article
6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non communication to
the applicant of the written opinion of the principal public
prosecutor at the Court of Cassation and the alleged unfairness of
the proceedings on account of the applicant's conviction on the basis
of statements obtained during the preliminary investigation, and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the
following amounts to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros) in respect of non pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(ii) EUR
250 (two hundred and fifty euros) in respect of costs and expenses,
plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 March 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
