R.M. v. TURKEY - 81681/12 (Judgment : Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)) [2017] ECHR 553 (13 June 2017)

In the case of R.M. v. Turkey,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

          Robert Spano, President,
          Julia Laffranque,
          Işıl Karakaş,
          Nebojša Vučinić,
          Paul Lemmens,
          Valeriu Griţco,
          Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 23 May 2017,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 81681/12) 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 an Uzbek and Turkish national, Mr R.M. (“the applicant”), on 5 October 2012. The President of the Section acceded to the applicant’s request not to have his name disclosed (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court).

2. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Yılmaz, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

3. On 8 January 2014 the following complaints were communicated to the Government: the alleged risk of ill-treatment in the event of the applicant’s extradition to Uzbekistan; the lack of a thorough examination of that risk by a competent court; the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention in prison with a view to his extradition and his subsequent detention in a foreigners’ removal centre; and the alleged absence of judicial remedies whereby he could challenge the unlawfulness of his detention and request compensation. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4. The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Istanbul.

5. On 19 September 2007 the applicant left Uzbekistan for fear of being subjected to ill-treatment while under criminal investigation. The applicant submitted that the investigation had been initiated on account of his political activities.

6. On 13 December 2007 the Uzbek prosecuting authorities issued an international warrant for the applicant’s arrest.

7. On an unspecified date the applicant arrived in Turkey.

8. On 9 September 2009 the applicant was arrested in Turkey. According to the arrest and search reports, he was arrested and searched because “he was wanted by Interpol”.

9. On 10 September 2009 the Bakırköy Magistrates’ Court ordered that the applicant be kept in provisional detention for forty-five days. The court based its decision on the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil, Commercial and Criminal Matters between the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Uzbekistan.

10. On 17 September 2009 the applicant appealed against his detention but on 20 October 2009 the magistrates’ court dismissed his objection.

11. On the same day the applicant applied to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) and the Ministry of the Interior for recognition as a refugee.

12. On 15 October 2009 the Turkish authorities received a formal extradition request from the Uzbek authorities.

13. In a judgment dated 23 October 2009 the Bakırköy Assize Court ordered the applicant’s extradition and that he be kept in detention, on the basis of Article 18 § 7 of the Criminal Code.

14. On 16 April 2010 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 23 October 2009 on procedural grounds. It noted, in particular, that the first-instance court had failed to attach a photograph of the applicant to his case file for identification purposes, to keep a record of the last hearing in the case file, to inform him of his legal rights, in breach of Law no. 5271, and to obtain final defence submissions from the applicant before ruling. The Court of Cassation also noted that the assize court had failed to enquire whether the applicant had been convicted in Uzbekistan or whether there was a case pending against him before ruling on the merits. Lastly, the Court of Cassation noted that the first-instance court had ordered the applicant’s extradition, whereas it should merely have declared the extradition request admissible, given that extradition could only be ordered by the Cabinet of Ministers.

15. The Court of Cassation’s decision was received by the first-instance court on 12 May 2010.

16. On 3 June 2010 the Bakırköy Assize Court asked the opinion of the Bakırköy public prosecutor as to whether the applicant could continue to be detained under Articles 100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The public prosecutor replied on the same day that the applicant could be kept in detention under Article 100.

17. On 7 June 2010 the Bakırköy Assize Court re-started its examination. It annulled its previous detention order, given on the basis of Article 18 § 7 of the Criminal Code, and ordered the applicant’s detention under Articles 100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It took account the nature of the offences, the state of the evidence, the content of the case file, the existence of a strong suspicion that he had committed the offences in question and the risk that he might abscond.

18. On 1 July 2010 the Bakırköy Assize Court decided to find out whether the applicant had been convicted or whether there was a case pending against him in Uzbekistan. To that end, the president of the court sent a letter to the Uzbek authorities via the Ministry of Justice.

19. On 4 November 2010 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent the documents that had been requested, which had been obtained through the Turkish Embassy in Tashkent, to the Ministry of Justice. On 10 November 2010 the Ministry of Justice sent them to the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s office.

20. On 14 December 2010 the Bakırköy public prosecutor submitted the documents to the Bakırköy Assize Court. They showed that there was neither a criminal conviction nor a case pending against the applicant in Uzbekistan.

21. Between 1 July and 27 December 2010 the assize court adjourned the proceedings six times as it awaited information from the Uzbek authorities.

22. On 27 December 2010, at the eighth hearing, the trial court asked the applicant to submit observations in response to the documents received from the Uzbek authorities and adjourned the hearing.

23. In the meantime, on 23 December 2010 the UNHCR had sent a letter to the Ministry of the Interior. It advised the authorities to grant the applicant subsidiary protection status and to refrain from extraditing or deporting him to Uzbekistan pending proceedings before the UNHCR. The UNHCR also informed the authorities in its letter that it had rejected the applicant’s application for refugee status since he did not qualify for that status but that he should nevertheless not be removed to Uzbekistan in the light of the non-refoulement principle and the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the UNHCR’s decision not to grant him refugee status.

24. On 7 January 2011 the Bakırköy Assize Court decided to ask the Ministry of the Interior to submit a certified copy of the UNHCR’s letter to it and adjourned the hearing.

25. The Ministry of the Interior submitted the document requested at a hearing on 4 February 2011. The court also decided to await the outcome of the applicant’s appeal against the UNHCR’s decision not to grant him refugee status.

26. The proceedings were adjourned between 4 February and 30 March 2011 as the assize court waited for a response from the UNHCR but on the latter of those dates it decided to annul its previous decision on the grounds that the UNHCR’s examination of the applicant’s appeal could take a long time.

27. At the thirteenth hearing in the case, held on 27 April 2011, the Bakırköy Assize Court asked the applicant to make his defence submissions. On 23 May 2011 the court once again adjourned the proceedings as one of the applicant’s lawyers failed to attend the hearing and the other lawyers had not submitted their defence submission.

28. On 1 June 2011 the Ministry of the Interior granted the applicant subsidiary protection status and a temporary permit to reside in Sakarya.

29. By a letter dated 2 June 2011, the Ministry of the Interior provided information about the applicant’s new status to the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Istanbul and Sakarya governors’ offices and the police’s Interpol-Europol department attached to the General Police Headquarters. The Ministry of the Interior asked the Ministry of Justice to take the necessary measures to prevent possible extradition of the applicant to Uzbekistan because he had been granted a permit to reside in Sakarya. On 15 June 2011 the Ministry of the Interior’s letter was submitted to the Bakırköy Assize Court by the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s office.

30. On 20 June 2011 the Bakırköy Assize Court once again admitted the request for the applicant’s extradition. In its judgment the court noted that there was an ongoing investigation into the applicant in Uzbekistan and that the offence with which he had been charged had nothing to do with military or political matters. The court noted that the applicant was under investigation for establishing a criminal organisation and causing bodily harm.

31. On the same day the court ordered that the applicant be kept in detention under Article 18 § 7 of the Criminal Code.

32. On 20 July 2011 the applicant applied to the Bakırköy Assize Court for release. He noted, in particular, that he could not be extradited because he had been granted subsidiary protection status. He asked the court to consider measures other than detention such as a prohibition on leaving the country, release on bail or an obligation to report to a police station. His application was rejected.

33. On 2 August 2011 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 20 June 2011. He once again stressed that he had been granted subsidiary protection status and that therefore he could not be extradited.

34. On 6 December 2011 the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation asked the high court to quash the judgment of 20 June 2011. He argued that the first-instance court had ruled without having made an examination of the case in the light of Article 3 of the Convention and the relevant provisions of other human rights treaties.

35. On 8 March 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 20 June 2011.

36. On 4 May 2012 the Ministry of Justice sent a letter to the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s office, stating that the applicant could no longer be extradited as a result of his subsidiary protection status and that therefore his detention should be reviewed by the court.

37. On 9 May 2012, at the request of the Bakırköy public prosecutor, the Bakırköy Assize Court ordered the applicant’s release from prison on the grounds that he had been granted subsidiary protection status. He was then placed in a foreigners’ removal centre, where he was detained for one day.

38. On 10 May 2012 the applicant was released from the removal centre on the basis of his residence permit.

39. On 10 September 2012 the applicant acquired Turkish nationality.

40. Between 7 June 2010 and 23 May 2011 the Bakırköy Assize Court ordered the applicant to be kept in detention owing to the nature of the offences in question, the state of the evidence and the fact that he was not a permanent resident of Turkey. The applicant asked to be released several times. He also appealed against the orders for his continued detention. In particular, in petitions and oral submissions to the trial court starting from June 2011 the applicant argued that he had been granted subsidiary protection status, that he could not be extradited and that therefore he should be released.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

41. The last paragraph of Article 38 of the Constitution provides as follows:

“No citizen shall be extradited to a foreign country because of an offence, except under obligations resulting from being a party to the International Criminal Court.”

42. Article 18 of the Criminal Code, which was in force at the material time, provided, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“1. A foreigner accused or convicted of a criminal offence allegedly committed in a foreign country can be returned upon request to that country for prosecution or punishment. However, an extradition request shall be rejected:

a. if the act [in question] does not constitute an offence under Turkish law,

b. if the act [in question] is in the nature of a free-speech offence or related to political or military matters,

c. if the offence [in question] has been committed against the security of the State of Turkey or with the intention of damaging the State of Turkey, a Turkish citizen or a legal entity incorporated under Turkish law,

d. if the offence is within the jurisdiction of the Turkish courts,

e. if the action is subject to the statute of limitations or an amnesty.

2. No citizen shall be extradited to a foreign country for an offence, except under obligations resulting from being a party to the International Criminal Court.

3. A request for extradition shall be rejected if there are strong suspicions that the person will be subjected to prosecution or punishment or torture and ill-treatment on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinions after being extradited.

4. An assize court shall rule on an extradition request in the presence of the person, in accordance with the present provision and the provisions of any international treaty to which Turkey is a party. The assize court’s decision is subject to appeal.

5. If the court finds that the extradition request is admissible, the implementation of the decision is subject to the discretion of the Cabinet of Ministers.

6. Measures of judicial control may be taken in respect of a person whose extradition has been requested in accordance with the provisions of the international treaty to which Turkey is a party.

7. Where a request for extradition is found admissible, detention of the person concerned can be ordered or other judicial control measures taken, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.

...”

43. The wording of Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271) can be found in Lütfiye Zengin and Others v. Turkey (no. 36443/06, § 27, 14 April 2015). Articles 100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide for the reasons, conditions and the procedure for ordering and extending pre-trial detention in the context of criminal investigations and proceedings brought against individuals in Turkey.

44. Article 141 of Law no. 5271 provides for compensation from the State for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of preventive measures taken within the context of a criminal investigation or prosecution.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

45. The applicant complained that the domestic court decisions allowing his extradition to Uzbekistan had violated his rights under Article 3 of the Convention as extradition would have given rise to a real risk of ill-treatment. When notifying the application to the respondent Government, the Court decided, of its own initiative, to put a question to the parties as to whether the applicant had had an effective domestic remedy whereby he could raise his allegation under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention.

46. The Court observes that on 1 June 2011 the applicant was granted subsidiary protection status and that on 10 September 2012, before lodging his application with the Court, the applicant acquired Turkish nationality, which means that pursuant to Article 38 of the Constitution he no longer faces a risk of extradition from Turkey to Uzbekistan or elsewhere (see paragraph 41 above). In those circumstances, the Court considers that the matter giving rise to this part of the application has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (see F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 73, ECHR 2016 and the cases cited therein, in particular, M.E. v. Sweden (striking out) [GC], no. 71398/12, §§ 34-35, 8 April 2015; O.G.O. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 13950/12, 18 February 2014; and also, M.M. v. Finland (dec.), no. 72861/11, 3 September 2013; K.S. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 51315/12, 21 January 2014; and V.K. v. Finland (dec.), no. 26112/13, 31 March 2015). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the Court’s list of cases.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS

47. The applicant complained that his detention in prison had been unlawful and that the length of that detention had been excessive, in breach of under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which, in its relevant parts, provides as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

... (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.”

48. The Government contested that argument.

A. Admissibility

49. The Government submitted that this part of the application should be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They maintained that the applicant should have applied to the judicial authorities and sought compensation, in accordance with Article 141 of Law no. 5271, after the judgment of the Bakırköy Assize Court had become final.

50. The applicant replied that given that the proceedings in question had concerned the threat of extradition to Uzbekistan, he had not been able to bring a case under Article 141.

51. The Court observes that while the respondent Government relied on Article 141 of Law no. 5271 in support of their non-exhaustion objection, they have not provided any explanation as to how that provision was relevant to the applicant’s situation. They have also not submitted any examples where that remedy was successfully applied to provide redress in circumstances similar to the applicant’s (see, mutatis mutandis, Musaev v. Turkey, no. 72754/11, § 24, 21 October 2014). The Court further notes that the provision in question governs compensation for people detained in strictly defined circumstances in the context of criminal investigations and proceedings brought against them in Turkey. It provides no possibility for compensation for people detained in the context of extradition proceedings. The Court is therefore not satisfied that the remedy suggested by the Government was appropriate and effective in the circumstances. The Court therefore rejects the Government’s preliminary objection.

52. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. The parties’ submissions

53. The applicant complained that the length of his detention during the extradition proceedings, which had lasted for thirty-two months, had been excessive. He also submitted that his detention had not had any legal basis.

54. The Government replied that the applicant’s detention had been in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. They argued in particular that the applicant’s detention in the extradition proceedings had had a legal basis as he had been detained pursuant to the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil, Commercial and Criminal Matters between the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Uzbekistan and Article 100 et seq. of Law no. 5271.

2. The Court’s assessment

(a) Conformity of the applicant’s detention with domestic law

55. In order to ascertain whether the period of detention in question was compatible with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, the Court must ascertain whether the deprivation of liberty, in addition to falling within one of the exceptions set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f), was “lawful”. It reiterates that where the “lawfulness” of detention is at issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law (see Gallardo Sanchez v. Italy, no. 11620/07, § 36, ECHR 2015, and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 91, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).

56. In the present case, the applicant was arrested on 9 September 2009 and detained in prison between 10 September 2009 and 9 May 2012 under the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil, Commercial and Criminal Matters between the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Uzbekistan, Article 18 § 7 of the Criminal Code and Articles 100 and 101 of Law no. 5271. The Court notes that Articles 100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide for the reasons, conditions and the procedure for ordering and extending pre-trial detention in the context of criminal investigations and proceedings brought against individuals in Turkey (see paragraph 43 above and also Nedim Şener v. Turkey, no. 38270/11, §§ 31-32, 8 July 2014), but not for extradition proceedings. The Court therefore has doubts whether the applicant’s detention between 7 June 2010 and 20 June 2011 under Articles 100 and 101 of Law no. 5271 was soundly grounded in domestic law. Nevertheless, having regard to its finding below (see paragraph 64), the Court considers that it is not required to reach a final conclusion on the “lawfulness” issue.

(b) Whether the detention was arbitrary

57. The Court reiterates that any deprivation of liberty under the second limb of Article 5 § 1 (f) will be justified only for as long as extradition proceedings are in progress and that if those proceedings are not prosecuted with due diligence, detention will cease to be permissible (Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, § 48, Series A no. 311, and Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 113, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V), The Court must perform this assessment on a case-by-case basis.

58. The Court has already had occasion to find, on account of unjustified delays on the part of the domestic authorities, that detention periods of one year and eleven months and one year and six months pending extradition were excessive in the aforementioned cases of Quinn and Gallardo Sanchez respectively.

59. The Court notes that the present applicant’s detention pending extradition lasted two years and eight months (from 9 September 2009 to 9 May 2012). It finds that major delays occurred at various stages of the extradition proceedings.

60. The Court first notes that the extradition proceedings were carried out with celerity between 9 September 2009, when the applicant was first arrested, and 23 October 2009, the date of the first-instance court’s first judgment. However, it subsequently took the Court of Cassation almost six months to quash the first-instance judgment. In that regard, the Court must note that the high court quashed the judgment of 23 October 2009 on procedural grounds. In particular, there appears to be no reason for the long delay in the Court of Cassation’s finding that the first-instance judgment’s conclusion was manifestly inappropriate (see 14 above).

61. Secondly, after receiving the Court of Cassation’s decision on 12 May 2010, the proceedings before the Bakırköy Assize Court lasted a further year. In particular, the first-instance court adjourned the trial six times between 1 July and 27 December 2010 as it awaited information from the Uzbek authorities. Although that information was obtained from the Uzbek authorities by the beginning of November 2010 at the latest, the first-instance court did not receive it until 14 December 2010 (see paragraphs 19 and 20 above). The Government have not provided reasons capable of justifying that delay.

62. Thirdly, it took the Court of Cassation nine months to examine the appeal lodged by the applicant against the judgment of 20 June 2011. As with its first examination of the case, the Court of Cassation conducted that procedure on the basis of the documents in the case file, without holding a hearing. In the Court’s view, the Court of Cassation should have demonstrated particular diligence in dealing with the case expeditiously since the applicant was in detention throughout the extradition proceedings.

63. Last but not least, the Bakırköy Assize Court was informed that the applicant had been granted subsidiary protection status by the Ministry of the Interior as early as 15 June 2011, that is to say almost eleven months before his release. The Court considers that the Ministry’s decision cannot be construed as having a direct bearing on the decisions of the Bakırköy Assize Court and the Court of Cassation. However, under Article 18 § 3 of the Criminal Code one of the domestic courts’ tasks during extradition proceedings was to ascertain whether the applicant risked being subjected to ill-treatment in the requesting State (see paragraph 42 above). Hence, both the Bakırköy Assize Court and the Court of Cassation should have assessed the information received from the Ministry of the Interior with due diligence long before the Bakırköy Assize Court received the letter from the Ministry of Justice dated 4 May 2012 and there is no satisfactory explanation for their delay in doing so.

64. To sum up, having regard to the nature of the extradition proceedings, the aim of which was to ensure that the prosecution of the applicant would be pursued in another State, and the unjustified delays in the Turkish courts, the Court finds that the applicant’s detention between 9 September 2009 and 9 May 2012 was excessively long (see Gallardo Sanchez, cited above, § 41) and there has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

65. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention between 9 and 10 May 2012 at the foreigners’ removal centre had been unlawful. He further alleged under Article 5 § 4 that he had not had at his disposal an effective remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention in prison. He also complained under Article 5 § 5 that he had not had access to any domestic remedy whereby he could obtain compensation for the alleged violations of his rights under Article 5.

66. Having regard to the facts of the case and its finding of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 64 above), the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility or the merits of the applicant’s other complaint under Article 5 § 1 or on his complaints under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and the cases cited therein).

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

67. 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

68. The applicant claimed 32,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

69. The Government contested that claim.

70. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

B. Costs and expenses

71. The applicant also claimed EUR 22,677 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. In support of his claim, the applicant submitted a time-sheet showing that his legal representatives had carried out one hundred and eighty-three hours and forty-five minutes of legal work on the application to the Court, a legal services agreement with his representative, invoices for translation, transportation and postal expenses.

72. The Government contested the applicant’s claims, submitting that the amounts requested were unsubstantiated and not supported by adequate documentary evidence.

73. 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 considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 3,320 covering costs for the proceedings before the Court.

C. Default interest

74. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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,

1. Decides to strike the case out of the list insofar as the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention are concerned;

2. Declares the complaint under Article 5 of the Convention concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention between 9 September 2009 and 9 May 2012 admissible;

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the applicant’s detention between 9 September 2009 and 9 May 2012;

4. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility or the merits of the other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention;

5. 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 the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 3,320 (three thousand three hundred and twenty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;

(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;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 June 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Hasan Bakırcı Robert Spano
Deputy Registrar President

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> R.M. v. TURKEY - 81681/12 (Judgment : Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)) [2017] ECHR 553 (13 June 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2017/553.html Cite as: CE:ECHR:2017:0613JUD008168112, [2017] ECHR 553, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0613JUD008168112