CASE OF RAHMİ ŞAHİN v. TURKEY

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF RAHMİ ŞAHİN v. TURKEY

(Application no. 39041/10)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 July 2016

FINAL

05/10/2016

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Rahmi Şahin v. Turkey,

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

Julia Laffranque, President,
Işıl Karakaş,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Paul Lemmens,
Ksenija Turković,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
Georges Ravarani, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 14 June 2016,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 39041/10) 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 three Turkish nationals, Mr Rahmi Şahin, Mr Erbil Acar and Mr Murat Aksu, on 7 May 2010.

2. The applicants were represented by Mr F. Timur, a lawyer practising in Hakkari. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

3. On 6 September 2011 the Court declared the application inadmissible in so far as it was lodged by Mr Erbil Acar and Mr Murat Aksu. It decided to adjourn the examination of Mr Rahmi Şahin’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning alleged ill-treatment during his arrest and the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation into his allegations of ill‑treatment.

4. On 6 May 2014 the President of the Section decided to grant legal aid to Mr Rahmi Şahin (“the applicant”) for his representation before the Court.

THE FACTS

I. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5. The applicant, Mr Rahmi Şahin, was born in 1985 and lives in Hakkari.

A. The applicant’s arrest, police custody and medical reports concerning alleged ill-treatment

6. On 12 December 2009 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of involvement in a demonstration and subsequent clashes between some of the demonstrators and the police in Hakkari. According to the arrest report, drafted at 4.30 p.m. and signed by two police officers, the latter officers arrested the applicant at around 4 p.m. after he had attempted to escape. The report said he had also fallen over. The police officers noted that the applicant had resisted arrest and that they had used proportionate force to apprehend him. The applicant refused to sign the arrest report.

7. At 11.30 p.m. on the same day, an incident report was drafted and signed by thirty-seven police officers. According to that report, the Fırat News Agency, a website controlled by the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party, an armed illegal organisation), had published a declaration by the KCK (Koma Civakên Kurdistan – the Union of Communities in Kurdistan), containing instructions to hold meetings and marches, to start Serhildan (rebellion), and carry out acts of civil disobedience to show support for Abdullah Öcalan. As a result, on 11 December 2009, a press conference was held and around 500-550 people, including mayors and local politicians from the DTP (Party for a Democratic Society), a pro-Kurdish political party, as well as members of a number of non-governmental organisations, gathered in front of the DTP’s Hakkari office. During the press conference, the crowd chanted slogans and carried banners praising Abdullah Öcalan and the PKK. That same day, the DTP’s dissolution was ordered by the Constitutional Court and thirty-seven of its members were banned from carrying out political activities. As a result, the Fırat News Agency published another article containing instructions for further Serhildan acts and for demonstrations. According to the police report, on 11 and 12 December 2009 the security forces had intervened in several areas in the city where demonstrators had blocked the traffic, chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and its leader, and burned tyres or attacked cars, shops and administrative buildings. The report further stated that when the security forces had intervened, some demonstrators had responded by throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at the police officers. According to the report on the applicant’s arrest, he had been apprehended after the police had moved against a group of 50-60 people who had been chanting slogans in favour of the PKK and its leader in the cemetery of the Biçer neighbourhood.

8. At 6.15 p.m. and 8.20 p.m. that day, two police officers made identical statements to two other officers. They both stated that the applicant had been with a group of people who had been chanting slogans in favour of the PKK and its leader and who had burned tyres. The group had attacked the police with stones when the police had moved against the gathering. According to their statements, the applicant had tried to flee and they had arrested him when he had fallen down, using proportionate force.

9. The arresting officers later identified the applicant. They submitted that the applicant had been in a group of people who had burned tyres and chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and its leader. The officers stated that they had arrested the applicant after he had attempted to avoid arrest.

10. At 6.33 p.m., the applicant was taken to the Hakkari state hospital for a medical examination. The doctor who examined the applicant noted the following information on a medical form:

“There is a haematoma on the left eye. [The injury] occurred three hours ago. There is no nausea or vomiting. The patient is conscious and co-operating. There is a slight swelling between the upper lip and the teeth (He stated/It was stated[1] that it was due to a fall). There is a bruised lesion with abrasions on the lumbar area at the level of the second vertebra. A dental examination is recommended.”

11. On 13 December 2009 the applicant was examined by the same doctor. The findings were the same as those in the report of 12 December 2009.

12. On the same day, the Hakkari Magistrates’ Court decided to restrict access to the investigation file concerning the applicant and two other people.

13. On 14 December 2009 a lawyer from the Hakkari Bar Association was asked to assist the applicant during questioning, which took place at the anti-terrorist branch of the Hakkari police headquarters. The applicant was asked to respond to a number of questions in the presence of his lawyer, Mr F. Timur. The applicant, however, exercised his right to remain silent and did not reply to any of the questions.

14. On the same day, the applicant’s legal representative applied to the Hakkari Magistrate’s Court and requested that the decision to restrict his and his client’s access to the investigation file be annulled and his client be released from police custody. On 15 December 2009 the Hakkari Magistrates’ Court dismissed the request. On 16 December 2009 the Hakkari Assize Court upheld the decision of 15 December 2009.

15. Meanwhile, on 14 December 2009 the applicant had made a statement to the Hakkari public prosecutor. He denied any involvement in the demonstration. He stated that the disturbances in the city had meant that he and his wife had been unable to go out of their house and that on 12 December 2009 he had left home in order to buy bread. He contended that he had seen police officers approaching him and had continued to walk towards them. One of the officers had insulted him and taken him to a hill close to their neighbourhood. They had then pushed him down the hill. An officer had hit him on his right ear with a plastic tube. The applicant had then started running down the hill, where there were other officers who had thrown him to the ground, with him landing on his back, and had arrested him. He stated that he still had pain in several parts of his body, particularly around the heart. He complained to the public prosecutor that after he had been arrested, he had been put in a police vehicle and had been hit on the back, close to his armpit, with the butt of a gun. He asked the public prosecutor to find and punish the officers who had been responsible for his ill-treatment.

16. After the questioning, the public prosecutor ordered a medical examination of the applicant. A forensic doctor, mentioning the findings of the previous medical reports, noted an old yellow-green ecchymosis in the right (sic) periorbital area and a mucosal tear of 0.5 cm and oedema on the right side of the upper lip. The report also stated that the applicant had described pain on the left side of his chest and in the left femoral and lumbar regions. According to the report, the applicant was sensitive upon palpation in those regions. The doctor concluded that the injuries were not life-threatening and required only simple medical care.

17. Later that day, the applicant was brought before the Hakkari Magistrates’ Court, where he pleaded innocent and asked to be released. The applicant’s legal representative noted that his client had been beaten during his arrest and that he had not sustained the injuries noted in the medical reports as the result of a fall. The applicant was subsequently detained on remand on suspicion of membership of the PKK on account of his alleged involvement in the events of 12 December 2009.

18. On 16 December 2009 the applicant’s legal representative lodged an application with the Hakkari Magistrates’ Court for his client’s release. In the application, the lawyer noted that the applicant had not sustained the injuries noted in the medical reports as the result a fall, but had been beaten by police officers. The court dismissed the application the same day.

19. Also on that day, the applicant’s legal representative requested that the Hakkari public prosecutor provide him with copies of the documents in the investigation file, which he was authorised to receive despite the restriction order. He further requested the medical reports issued in respect of the applicant. According to the applicant’s submissions, his lawyer was only provided with the medical reports of 12 and 13 December 2009; the public prosecutor’s office failed to provide him with the report of 14 December 2009, which had been issued at the end of the applicant’s detention in police custody.

20. On 17 December 2009 the applicant applied to the Hakkari Magistrates’ Court for release from detention. In his application, the applicant also stated that the police officers had beaten him when they had arrested him. He contended that the officers had held him by the arms and hit him. His eyes and his mouth had been covered with blood as a result.

21. On 18 December 2009 the Hakkari Magistrates’ Court dismissed the application for release. In its decision, the court did not refer to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.

B. The investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment

22. On 28 December 2009 the applicant’s lawyer filed a complaint against the police officers who had taken part in the applicant’s arrest. He claimed that the applicant had been beaten by the police officers and that he had been taken to a hill and ordered to run towards the police officers, who had stood further down the hill and had then thrown him to the ground. He also claimed that the medical reports that had been issued were not appropriate or in compliance with internal regulations or the “Istanbul Protocol”. It was further alleged in the complaint that during their consultation in police custody, the lawyer had observed bruises around the applicant’s left eye and damage to his gums, which could have been the result of being hit on the face. The applicant’s legal representative further stated that the applicant was suffering from constant pain around the heart and chest. The lawyer requested that his client be examined by medical practitioners at the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, a non‑governmental organisation specialised in reporting torture and other types of ill-treatment. He further requested that the public prosecutor initiate an official investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and identify the officers who had ill-treated his client. Finally, the lawyer requested that the public prosecutor take a statement from his client in person and communicate to him the date and the time for taking such a statement.

23. On 17 March 2010 the Hakkari public prosecutor decided not to bring any charges in relation to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. In his decision, the public prosecutor first summarised the content of the incident report dated 12 December 2009 (see paragraph 7 above). Secondly, he noted that the applicant had acted with a group of people who had chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and that he had been arrested after he had attempted to escape and had fallen. The public prosecutor noted in that respect that two police officers had identified the applicant. The public prosecutor then noted that the applicant had acted with groups of people who had blocked traffic, burned tyres, chanted slogans praising the PKK, carried out attacks with stones and Molotov cocktails, and that he had resisted the police by throwing stones when they tried to arrest him, and that he had fallen. The public prosecutor observed that although the applicant had sustained minor injuries on his face and body, he had failed to substantiate his claims that he had been beaten and insulted by the police officers. According to the public prosecutor, acts of “social terrorism” led supporters of terrorism to resist or attack the security forces, in some cases with weapons, and so members of the security forces were obliged to use force within the limits of the law. The Hakkari public prosecutor considered that the applicant had acted upon the instructions of the PKK and that it was to be expected that such people would make claims of ill-treatment. Noting that, according to section 16 of Law no. 2559 on the Duties and Powers of the Police, the police officers had the authority to use force against PKK supporters, the public prosecutor considered that the police had used proportionate force against the applicant. He also noted that there was no evidence in the case file indicating any deficiency in the medical reports drafted by the doctors. The public prosecutor concluded that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were unsubstantiated.

24. On 31 March 2010 the applicant’s legal representative lodged an appeal against the decision of 17 March 2010. He noted, in particular, that the Hakkari public prosecutor’s assessment had been based on incorrect facts such as the “minor nature” of the applicant’s injuries and his involvement in violent acts during the events of 12 December 2009. The lawyer also noted that the public prosecutor had failed to take a statement from the applicant, to collect evidence in relation to his allegations or to identify and question the arresting police officers and potential witnesses. The lawyer also noted that the medical reports had complied with neither domestic legislation nor the “Istanbul Protocol” since they lacked details such as the applicant’s medical history, the applicant’s own account of how the injuries had been caused and an assessment regarding the cause of the injuries. He also claimed that the applicant’s medical examination had taken place in the presence of police officers.

25. On 13 April 2010 the Van Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Noting that there was no evidence showing that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment, the assize court held that the decision of 17 March 2010 had been lawful.

C. Photographs submitted by the Government

26. The Government submitted two sets of photographs taken by the security forces with regard to the demonstrations and disturbances of 11 and 12 December 2009 in Hakkari. The first set of 374 photographs concerned the demonstrations held in Hakkari city centre, of which 14 show young men and adolescents throwing stones. The remaining photographs show people demonstrating in different parts of the city centre.

27. The second set of 444 photographs concerned the gatherings and disturbances in the outlying neighbourhoods of Medrese and Biçer in Hakkari. The photographs show that children, adolescents and a few young men gathered in various places in the neighbourhoods. In some photographs, the demonstrators are seen burning tyres and blocking streets. In most of the photographs, children and adolescents, mostly boys, are seen standing or walking. Four of the photographs show children standing close to soldiers, probably talking to them, while another ten show adolescents and young men standing in front of police officers. In around twenty-five of the photographs, children, adolescents and young men, some of whom have their faces covered, are seen throwing stones at an armoured police vehicle. Five pictures show police vehicles spraying demonstrators with a water cannon and tear gas.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

28. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and that there had been no effective investigation of those allegations, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

29. The Government contested that assertion.

A. Admissibility

30. The Government argued that the application should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In that connection, they stated that the applicant should have brought proceedings before the administrative or civil courts to seek compensation for the harm he had allegedly suffered.

31. The Court reiterates that it has already examined and rejected similar preliminary objections in similar cases (see, in particular, Karayiğit v. Turkey (dec.), no. 63181/00, 5 October 2004; and Gazioğlu and Others v. Turkey, no. 29835/05, §§ 29 and 30, 17 May 2011 and the cases cited therein). The Court finds no particular circumstances in the instant case which would require it to depart from its findings in the above-mentioned cases. It therefore dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection.

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

B. Merits

1. The parties’ submissions

33. The applicant maintained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during and immediately after his arrest. In particular, he had been beaten, insulted, and hit on the head and back. The arresting police officers had also thrown him to the ground, and he had landed on his back. He stated that his injuries, which were serious, had been detailed in the medical reports and photographs submitted to the Court. He also contended that he had undergone a medical examination more than three hours after his arrest, and that during that time he had been beaten in a police vehicle. He noted that the medical reports about his injuries had not complied with the appropriate international standards.

34. The applicant further submitted that the public prosecutor had failed to initiate an investigation into his ill-treatment despite the fact that the prosecutor knew of the injuries. According to the applicant, the public prosecutor had also failed to conduct an adequate investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. The applicant maintained in that regard that the public prosecutor had not attempted to identify and question the arresting police officers, had not taken a statement, and had not collected any evidence regarding the applicant’s allegations.

35. The Government submitted that on 11 and 12 December 2009 illegal demonstrations had taken place in Hakkari after the PKK had instructed people to start Serhildan and that had led to serious public disturbances. Demonstrators had attacked the security forces, administrative buildings, shops and cars with arms, stones, knives and Molotov cocktails. According to the Government, the applicant’s arrest had therefore been part of collective action by the security forces against an immediate risk to public order and security. The security forces had used proportionate force, in accordance with section 16 of Law no. 2559.

36. The Government further noted that the medical expert who had examined the applicant on 12 and 13 December 2009 had found that the applicant had sustained injuries on his body as a result of falling. The Government at the same time argued that the applicant had been injured because he had resisted the police. They considered that the security forces had used a level of force which had been strictly necessary and proportionate given that the applicant had posed a risk to public order. The Government concluded that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were unsubstantiated.

37. As to the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation, the Government contended that the applicant had had an effective remedy at his disposal, that is, an application to the public prosecutor’s office. The Government further noted that the Hakkari public prosecutor had initiated an investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment upon receipt of the applicant’s complaint and had decided against prosecuting as there had been no concrete evidence in support of those allegations. The Government considered that simply because the result of the investigation had not been in the applicant’s favour did not mean there were grounds for claiming a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

2. The Court’s assessment

a. General principles

38. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the fundamental values of a democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim’s behaviour. Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions, and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 of the Convention, even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. In order to fall within the scope of Article 3, ill‑treatment must attain a minimum level of severity. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 51284/09, § 65, 30 September 2014 and the cases cited therein; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81 and 86, 28 September 2015).

39. Where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 117, 1 June 2010). Such an investigation must be thorough, which means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 325, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). In cases concerning use of force by the security forces, an investigation must be capable of establishing the circumstances and the nature of the force used. In particular, the Court will expect the investigating authorities to have ascertained the actual cause of the injuries (see Cemal Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 31298/05, § 32, 7 February 2012).

b. Application of the above principles in the present case

40. The Court notes at the outset that the medical reports of 12 and 13 December 2009 lack details, such as the extent and nature of the injuries. Nevertheless, despite their succinctness and the failure to comply with national and international standards concerning the medical examination of people in police custody (see Şakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 88, 10 November 2015), the reports do mention the presence of injuries on the applicant’s body, and they were not disputed by the Government.

41. However, the Court is faced with two conflicting versions as to how the applicant sustained these injuries. The applicant submitted that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and detention in police custody, whereas the Government claimed that the applicant had been injured as a result of a fall and because he had resisted the arrest.

42. In this connection, the Court first observes that there is nothing in the case file showing that the applicant was subjected to deliberate ill‑treatment at the hands of the security forces. In particular, the applicant’s allegations that he was hit on his ear and under his armpit and that he was pushed down a hill would have left other marks on his body.

43. The Court further observes that the arresting officers acknowledged that they had used force in order to effect the arrest and that the public prosecutor closed the investigation noting that proportionate force had been used against the applicant. On the other hand, the medical report of 12 December 2009 refers to the applicant’s fall and the public prosecutor also noted that the applicant had fallen while trying to escape the arrest.

44. In the light of the above, the Court finds that it does not have a clear picture of the circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries. Nevertheless, given that it has not been disputed by the national authorities and the Government that force was used to effect the applicant’s arrest, the Court considers that the national authorities were under an obligation to provide a plausible explanation for the injuries in question by way of conducting an effective investigation. The Court accordingly finds it appropriate to examine whether the investigation carried out by the national authorities was capable of establishing the true circumstances of the applicant’s arrest and ascertaining the cause of his injuries.

45. In this connection, the Court first observes that the applicant stated before the domestic authorities and the Court that he had not participated in the demonstrations held on 11 and 12 December 2009 and that he had been beaten by the police. In contrast, the incident and arrest reports, and the arresting officers’ statements, stated that the applicant had acted with a group of people who had chanted slogans praising the PKK and its leader and burned tyres, and who had thrown stones at the police when the latter had intervened. The Hakkari public prosecutor not only failed to look into the wide disparities between the accounts of events by the applicant and the police officers, but also noted that the applicant had committed a number of reprehensible acts which did not appear in the police reports. According to the public prosecutor’s decision, the applicant had not only burned tyres and chanted slogans praising the PKK, but had also blocked the traffic and carried out attacks with Molotov cocktails (see paragraph 23 above). Given that the public prosecutor’s findings of fact leading to the applicant’s arrest are not based on any of the evidence in the investigation file, the Court is unable to comprehend exactly what evidence or information formed the basis for those findings. In that regard, the Court must take note of the fact that the Government did not claim that the applicant appeared in any of the 818 photographs submitted to the Court.

46. Similarly, the Hakkari public prosecutor does not appear to have attempted to find out the actual circumstances of the applicant’s arrest. The Court observes that the statements of the arresting officers to their colleagues regarding the applicant’s arrest are the same, word for word (see paragraph 8 above), and that the fact that these statements are identical does not allow for an assessment to be made of their respective roles in the applicant’s arrest. However, that fact did not spur the Hakkari public prosecutor into putting any questions to those officers. As a matter of fact, the public prosecutor neither obtained the arresting officers’ statements nor asked for one from the applicant regarding his allegations, even though there had been an explicit request by the applicant’s legal representative for such a statement (see paragraph 22 above). Nor did the public prosecutor conduct an on-site inspection at the scene of the incident or attempt to ascertain the sequence of events between 4 p.m. and 6.33 p.m., when the applicant was under the control of the police.

47. In the light of the above, the Court cannot but conclude that the Hakkari public prosecutor did not attempt to establish the true circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries.

48. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

49. 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

50. The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 250,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

51. The Government contested those claims. They considered that there was no causal link between the alleged violation and the claim for pecuniary damage. They also considered that the sum claimed for non-pecuniary damage was excessive.

52. The Court observes that the applicant did not submit any evidence to the Court in support of his claim for pecuniary damage; it therefore rejects that claim. On the other hand, it awards the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

B. Costs and expenses

53. The applicant also claimed EUR 175,000 in respect of lawyer’s fees and EUR 15,133 for other costs and expenses incurred before the Court, such as postage expenses and translation costs. In support of his claim, the applicant submitted a time-sheet showing that his legal representative had carried out forty-four hours’ legal work and two receipts showing payment of EUR 303 for translations.

54. The Government submitted that the applicant had not shown that the costs sought had been actually incurred.

55. 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 3,300 covering costs under all heads. From this sum there should be a deduction of EUR 850 in respect of legal aid granted under the Council of Europe’s legal aid scheme.

C. Default interest

56. 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. Declares the application admissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;

3. 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 5,000 (five thousand euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 3,300 (three thousand three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, less the EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty euros) granted by way of legal aid;

(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;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 July 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

              Stanley NaismithJulia Laffranque
RegistrarPresident

[1]. It is not clear whether the report contained the expressions “he stated” or “it was stated” since the doctor’s handwriting is not entirely legible.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy