003-4986190-6115569

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 15 (2015)   20.01.2015   Judgments of 20 January 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing six judgments:   Two Chamber judgments1 are summarised below; and for four others separate press releases have   been issued: Đurić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (applications nos. 79867/12, 79873/12,   80027/12, 80182/12, 80203/12 and 115/13), Manuello and Nevi v. Italy (no. 107/10), Arribas Antón   v. Spain (no. 16563/11), and Gözüm v. Turkey (no. 4789/10).   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Ateşoğlu v. Turkey (application no. 53645/10)   The applicant, Musa Ateşoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1985 and lives in Kars (Turkey).   The case concerned his complaint that he had been tortured in police custody.   On 27 April 2002 Mr Ateşoğlu, who was 17 years old at the time, was arrested by police officers in   Kars on suspicion of robbery and taken to the local police station. He alleges that, during his ensuing   interrogation, the police beat him and subjected him to falaka (beating on the soles of his feet). He   was questioned a few days later by the public prosecutor, who noted his complaint of ill-treatment   and then released him. In May 2002 the prosecuting authorities initiated criminal proceedings   against four police officers accusing them of ill-treatment and, ultimately, in June 2010 the Kars   Assize Court found the officers guilty of torture with the aim of extracting a confession. Each officer   was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and banned from public service for six months. The   judgment was, however, subsequently suspended in accordance with Article 231 of the Code of   Criminal Procedure, thus cancelling the judgment with all its legal consequences, including the   sentence, provided that the officers abided by the suspension order.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of   the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Ateşoğlu alleged that he had been subjected to ill-   treatment while in police custody and complained about the excessive length of the ensuing criminal   proceedings against the police officers as well as the suspension of the resulting judgment against   them.   Violation of Article 3 (torture)   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: 45,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a   panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and   deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the   Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Mesut Yurtsever and Others v. Turkey (nos. 14946/08, 21030/08, 24309/08,   24505/08, 26964/08, 26966/08, 27088/08, 27090//08, 27092/08, 38752/08,   38778/08, and 38807/08)*   The applicants are thirteen Turkish nationals who were detained in the F-type prison2 in Tekirdağ   (Turkey) at the time of the events. The case concerned decisions by the education committee of the   Tekirdağ F-type prison not to pass on certain editions of the daily newspaper Azadiya Welat to   prisoners.   These decisions, taken in 2007, were based on the Turkish Law on the execution of sentences and   preventive measures, which provides that no publications containing information, written material,   photographs or comments which are obscene or likely to endanger the security of the institution   may be given to prisoners. The committee noted that the publications in question were in Kurdish, a   language which none of the prison staff understood and which, moreover, included a number of   different dialects; accordingly, it was not possible to arrange for the translation of the editions   concerned or to check whether they satisfied the conditions set out in the aforementioned Law.   Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants   complained that the authorities had refused to give them access to a newspaper because it had   been written in Kurdish.   Violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction: EUR 300 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 500 (costs and expenses) to each   applicant   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   Prison with living units for one to three prisoners.   2