003-5825086-7418703

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 266 (2017)   05.09.2017   Judgments of 5 September 2017   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1.   four Chamber judgments are listed below;   seven Committee judgments, which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court,   can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Tekın and Arslan v. Belgium (application no. 37795/13)*   The applicants, Ilhami Tekin and Döne Arslan, are two Belgian nationals who also have Turkish   nationality. They were born in 1961 and 1960 and live in Charleroi and Anvers (Belgium). The case   concerned the death of their son, Michael Tekin (born in 1978), in Jamioulx Prison in 2009.   Between 2007 and 2009 Michael Tekin was placed on three occasions in the psychiatric wing of   Jamioulx Prison. On 3 July 2009 he was released, subject to a number of conditions. On 7 August   the public prosecutor attached to the Charleroi Court of First Instance decided that he was to   be returned to the psychiatric wing of Jamioulx Prison for failure to comply with the conditions of his   release. He was placed in an individual cell in an ordinary section of Jamioulx Prison.   On 8 August 2009 the deputy prison governor decided to apply specific security measures to the   applicants’ son for a seven-day period. Prison officer R., together with two other officers (L. and D.),   were instructed to inform him about the measures in question. When notified, Michael Tekin   allegedly provoked R. to such an extent that the three prison officers believed that they were about   to be attacked. R. then decided to place Michael Tekin in an isolation cell. In order to remove him   from his cell, R. used a restraint technique known as an “arm lock” (“clé de bras”); L. and D. helped   him to maintain it while a dozen members of staff arrived as back up. On reaching the isolation cell   the prison officers noted that Michael Tekin’s face was cyanotic. The medical staff intervened,   unsuccessfully. Michael Tekin was pronounced dead at 12.50 p.m.   An investigation was opened automatically and the witnesses were questioned. An autopsy was   carried out. In March 2012 R., L. and D. were sent for trial before the Charleroi Criminal Court, which   acquitted them of manslaughter. Michael Tekin’s parents lodged an appeal in their capacity as civil   parties. Those proceedings are pending before the Mons Court of Appeal.   Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Michael   Tekin’s parents complained about their son’s death; they considered that the force used had been   neither absolutely necessary nor proportionate.   Violation of Article 2   Just satisfaction: 20,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 6,000 (costs and expenses) to   the applicants jointly   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   Bayram Koç v. Turkey (no. 38907/09)   Bozkaya v. Turkey (no. 46661/09)   Türk v. Turkey (no. 22744/07)   The applicants in these three cases, Bayram Koç, Ayhan Bozkaya and Mehmet Ali Türk, are Turkish   nationals born in 1980, 1975 and 1972 respectively. Mr Koç lives in Diyarbakir while Mr Bozkaya and   Mr Türk are currently in detention in Kahramanmaraş and Antalya (Turkey), respectively, the latter   serving a life sentence. They complained about not having had access to a lawyer while being   questioned by the police, in the case of Bayram Koc due to a systemic restriction of the right to have   access to a lawyer under the law applicable at the time of his arrest – as he was accused of   committing an offence that fell within the jurisdiction of the state security courts, which were later   abolished – and in the other two cases as a result of the applicants’ alleged waiver of their right to   have access to a lawyer.   All three applicants were questioned by the police, in 2003 and 2004 respectively, on suspicion, in   particular, of membership in an illegal organisation. They all confessed, in the absence of a lawyer,   to being members of an illegal organisation and, in the cases of Mr Bozkaya and Mr Türk, to having   committed violent offences in connection with their membership in these organisations. During   court hearings they later retracted parts of their confessions. All three applicants were convicted –   Mr Koç of the membership in an armed organisation, and both Mr Bozkaya and Mr Türk of the   offence of, in particular, seeking to remove part of the national territory from the State’s control –   and given prison sentences. Their convictions were eventually upheld by the Court of Cassation in   2010, 2009 and 2006, respectively.   Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial / right to legal assistance of own   choosing) of the European Convention, all three applicants complained that their right to a fair trial   was violated because their convictions were based on confessions obtained through unlawful   coercion tactics and in the absence of a lawyer. Mr Türk maintained in particular that he had been   led to believe that his confession was a mere formality because the offence for which he thought he   was charged was time-barred.   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) – in all three cases   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings) – in the case of Bozkaya   Just satisfaction: In all three cases, the Court held that the finding of a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and   (c) of the Convention constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage   sustained by the applicants in that connection. It further awarded EUR 2,000 EUR to Mr Bozkaya in   respect of non-pecuniary damage in connection with the excessive length of the criminal   proceedings, as well as EUR 750 EUR to Mr Koç, EUR 1,000 to Mr Bozkaya and EUR 2,000 to Mr Türk   in respect of costs and expenses.   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)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   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.   3