Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 106
March 2008
Taştan v. Turkey - 63748/00
Judgment 4.3.2008 [Section II]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Obligation for a seventy-one year old to perform military service: violation
Facts: The applicant, who was born in 1929, was obliged to do his military service at the age of 71. On 15 February 2000 he was called up for military service and taken by the gendarmes to the military recruitment office. A medical check-up found him fit for military service. The applicant underwent a month’s training for new recruits. He was forced to take part in the same activities and physical exercises as 20-year-old recruits. The applicant alleged that he was subjected to degrading treatment during his training and was the target of various jokes. As he had no teeth, he had problems eating at army barracks. He also suffered from heart and lung problems on account of temperatures dropping to as low as minus 30°C. Lastly, he alleged that he had had no means of communicating with his son throughout the entire period of his military service. After his military training the applicant was transferred to an infantry brigade, where his state of health deteriorated. He was examined by a doctor on two occasions and then admitted to a military hospital, before being transferred to another hospital where, on 26 April 2000, he finally obtained a certificate exempting him from military service on grounds of heart failure and old age. The Turkish Government maintained that, in accordance with the practice followed in similar cases, the applicant’s personal records relating to his military service had been destroyed.
Law: Article 3 together with Article 13 – It was the responsibility of the State to provide a plausible explanation for the cause of any harm to the physical or mental integrity of persons placed under the control of the authorities. In this case that requirement had not been satisfied. Noting that the authorities had destroyed the records of the applicant’s military service, the Court had little information in its possession, apart from the applicant’s statements, regarding the circumstances of his military service or how the applicant, who spoke only Kurdish, had been able to communicate his complaints to the doctors and his hierarchical superiors. It was established and undisputed, however, that the applicant, who was 71 years old at the material time, had performed part of his military service between 15 March and 26 April 2000, including a month’s training. While he had shown no signs of any particular illness when called up for military service, after a month’s forced participation in military training intended for 20-year-old conscripts he had had to be admitted to hospital. Moreover, the Turkish Government had not referred to any particular measure taken with a view to alleviating, in the applicant’s specific case, the difficulties inherent in military service, or adapting compulsory service to his case. Nor had they specified whether there had been any public interest in forcing him to perform his military service at such an advanced age. The Government had confined themselves to emphasising the applicant’s share of responsibility in the matter, in so far as he had failed to register himself in the civil status register until 1986.
Calling the applicant up to do military service and keeping him there and making him take part in training tailored for much younger recruits had been a particularly distressing experience and had affected his dignity. It had caused him suffering in excess of that which any man might experience when obliged to perform military service and had, in itself, amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.
Considering that there was no provision in domestic law for appeal in the applicant’s particular situation, and that the destruction of his records would, in any event, have prevented him from seeking any redress, the Court dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies (Article 35 § 1) and found that the applicant had not had access to an effective remedy (article 13).
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© 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