Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 173
April 2014
Sarisülük v. Turkey (dec.) - 64126/13
Decision 25.3.2014 [Section II]
Article 35
Article 35-1
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Alleged ineffectiveness of investigation into action taken to break up demonstrations following events in Taksim square: inadmissible
Facts – In May 2013 a peaceful demonstration was held in Gezi Park to protest against the felling of trees there and the construction of a shopping centre in Taksim Square in Istanbul. Intervention by the police led to confrontation. Several week-long anti-Government demonstrations ensued in the main Turkish cities. In June 2013 one of the applicants’ relatives was hit in the head by a bullet during a demonstration in Ankara. An investigation was immediately instigated and the applicants lodged a complaint. Their relative died a few days later. A number of investigative measures were carried out. In July 2013 the prosecutor lodged his indictment with the Ankara Assize Court. The division dealing with the case held that the defendant’s acts had occurred in the course of his duties and ordered the suspension of proceedings pending the requisite authorisation from the Ministry of the Interior bodies, in accordance with the Trial of Civil Servants Act. Apparently, this authorisation was subsequently granted. The defendant appeared in disguise at the hearings, which took place via videoconference. Altercations took place outside the first hearing because of the intensive media coverage of the case. At the December 2013 hearing the judges stood down. Furthermore, some judges had reportedly fallen asleep during the hearing. The judges’ decision to stand down was declared invalid. The President of the division lodged an extraordinary appeal against this invalidation.
Law – Article 35 § 1: It was crucial for the protection mechanism established by the Convention to remain subsidiary to the national systems for safeguarding human rights. In the present case the events leading up to the death of the applicants’ relative had taken place in June 2013 and criminal proceedings were under way against the police officer charged. The authorities had only had about nine months to act at the date of the present decision. Even if administrative authorisation was required to prosecute the police officer – which might have affected the effectiveness of the procedure – the actual investigation had not stagnated at any time since the onset of the events. Neither the proceedings as they had unfolded nor the length of time elapsed so far suggested that the investigation was showing any early signs of ineffectiveness.
It was true that police operations had to be adequately regulated under domestic law, by means of a system of appropriate and effective safeguards against arbitrary action and excessive use of force. Accordingly, the Court must take into consideration not only any acts performed by State officials who did actually resort to force but also all the circumstances surrounding such acts, including their preparation and supervision. In particular, law-enforcement officials should be trained in assessing whether the use of lethal weapons was absolutely necessary or not, not only by following the letter of the relevant regulations but also by taking due account of the overriding importance of respect for human life as a fundamental value. It was important to consider the preparation and supervision of a police operation which led to a person’s death in order to ascertain whether, in the specific circumstances of the case, the authorities had taken appropriate care to ensure that any risk to life was minimised by means of planning, issuing of appropriate orders and conducting supervision, and whether or not the authorities had shown negligence in their choice of measures, resources and methods.
Nevertheless, under the circumstances of the present case, the Court ceased its consideration of the case there because the application was clearly premature. Moreover, no evidence had emerged to date such as to exonerate the applicants from exhausting domestic remedies in connection with an individual application to the Constitutional Court. If, however, the domestic procedures failed to produce proper results because of their protracted nature and/or their organisation, thus rendering them ineffective within the meaning of the Court’s case-law, the applicants would be able, in due course, to lodge a fresh application with the Court.
Conclusion: inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy