EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS  
Press release issued by the Registrar  
402  
22.7.2003  
Chamber judgments concerning  
Czech Republic, Finland, France, Romania, Spain,  
Turkey and the United Kingdom  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13  
Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final.1  
Violation Article 6 § 1  
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – inadmissible  
(1) Schmidtová v. Czech Republic (application no. 48568/99)  
Length of administrative and judicial proceedings  
The applicant, Berta Schmidtová, has dual Czech and German nationality. She was born in  
1920 and lives in Brno. Her husband owned agricultural land and buildings in Brno, which  
were confiscated in 1945 pursuant to Presidential decree no. 12/1945. The applicant’s  
husband died in 1951.  
At some point between 18 and 21 December 1992 Mrs Schmidtová informed the Land  
Registry Office of the town of Brno (pozemkový úřad magistrátu města Brna) that she  
intended to seek restitution of the properties that had been confiscated. She requested the  
occupiers to return the properties to her. The Land Registry Office issued an administrative  
decision turning down most of her requests, whereupon the applicant sought judicial review  
in the Regional Court (krajský soud). Those proceedings are still pending.  
The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) of  
the European Convention on Human Rights, of the length of proceedings for the restitution of  
the properties confiscated by the State. She also complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No.  
1 (protection of property), of the financial consequences of the delays in the proceedings.  
The European Court of Human Rights noted that the dispute had given rise to an  
administrative procedure followed by judicial proceedings. Under domestic law, the  
proceedings were deemed to have started 60 days after the applicant’s letters before action to  
the occupiers of the properties concerned. The proceedings were still pending after 10 years  
and 3 months.  
1. Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a  
Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the  
17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a  
serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue  
of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or  
issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber  
judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not  
intend to make a request to refer.  
- 2 -  
The Court found that the case had been complex. However, although there had been delays  
attributable to the applicant, they were minor when compared to the overall length of the  
proceedings. There had been periods of inaction on the part of the national authorities, who  
had not always acted expeditiously. There was a lot at stake for the applicant, particularly in  
view of her age and declining health. Accordingly, the Court found that the proceedings had  
not been heard within a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the  
Convention and held unanimously that there had been violation of that provision.  
As to the applicant’s complaint of a violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her  
possessions, the Court noted that the issue was still before the domestic courts. Consequently,  
it declared that part of the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.  
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 6,000  
euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment  
is available only in French.)  
(2) Hyvönen v. Finland (no. 52529/99)  
Friendly settlement  
Appeal struck out after applicant’s failure to attend hearing  
Martti Hyvönen, a Finnish national, was born in 1928 and lives in Turku (Finland). On  
16 June 1998 he was convicted of aggravated concealment of stolen goods and aggravated  
forgery and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. His appeal was struck out after he had  
failed to attend the hearing – allegedly due to dementia and other age-related illnesses. His  
request for the proceedings to be reopened was dismissed on 15 July 1999. He was refused  
leave to appeal.  
Mr Hyvönen complained, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention, that he  
had been denied a fair hearing in the criminal proceedings because his dementia and other  
age-related illnesses were not accepted as valid reasons for his failure to attend the appeal  
hearing. Furthermore, his lawyer was unable to submit pleadings or re-examine a witness.  
The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 2,500 is to be  
paid for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is  
available only in English.)  
Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
(3) SA Cabinet Diot and SA Gras Savoye v. France (nos. 49217/99 and 49218/99)  
Violation of property right through failure to reimburse VAT paid in error  
The applicants, Cabinet Diot and Gras Savoye, are two insurance broking companies whose  
head offices are in Paris and Neuilly-sur-Seine respectively.  
They were liable to value added tax (VAT) on their trading activities for 1978. However, the  
Sixth Directive of the Council of the European Communities, which came into force on  
1 January 1978, provided an exemption from VAT for insurance and reinsurance  
transactions. A further Council directive issued on 30 June 1978 granted France additional  
time in which to implement the Sixth Directive. However, since the new directive did not  
- 3 -  
have retroactive effect, the Sixth Directive remained applicable from 1 January 1978 to  
30 June 1978.  
Relying on the Sixth Directive, the applicant companies claimed reimbursement of the VAT  
paid in error for the year 1978. Their claims were dismissed by the administrative court and  
the Conseil d’Etat, notably on the ground that a European directive could not be relied on  
directly to defeat a provision of domestic law. Both companies subsequently lodged further  
appeals which were dismissed by the Conseil d’Etat on 9 December 1998.  
The applicant companies complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of  
property) to the Convention, that they had been unable to obtain reimbursement of the VAT  
paid for 1978.  
The Court referred to its case-law and noted that the applicant companies had had claims  
against the State for VAT paid in error for the period from 1 January to 30 June 1978 and, in  
any event, at least a legitimate expectation of securing repayment.  
The interference with the applicants’ property had not been necessary in the “general  
interest”. Both the dismissal of the applicant companies’ claims against the State and the lack  
of an adequate domestic remedy to ensure that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their  
possessions was protected had upset the fair balance that had to be maintained between the  
demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of  
the fundamental rights of the individual. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there  
had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.  
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Cabinet Diot  
EUR 102,807.50 and Gras Savoye EUR 275,991.57 for pecuniary damage. It also awarded  
each of the companies EUR 15,244.90 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available  
only in French.)  
(4) Coste v. France (no. 50632/99)  
Violation Article 6 § 1  
Length of criminal proceedings  
Pascal Coste is a French national who was born in 1955 and lives at Verdière. He was  
involved in a brawl with police officers on 21 January 1984 and arrested the same day by  
other police officers.  
On 16 March 1984 the police officers lodged a criminal complaint and applied for leave to  
join the proceedings as civil parties. A judicial investigation was started, the applicant being  
charged with common assault, assaulting police officers, insulting behaviour and obstructing  
an officer in the execution of his duty. The Criminal Court gave him a two months’  
suspended prison sentence. The police officers’ application to join the proceedings as civil  
parties was granted. The proceedings ended on 23 February 1999 with the dismissal of the  
applicant’s appeal to the Court of Cassation.  
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the  
applicant complained of the excessive length of the proceedings.  
- 4 -  
The Court noted that it was not clear from the case file when exactly the “criminal charges”  
within the meaning of the Convention had been brought against the applicant. Consequently,  
it found that the proceedings had lasted a minimum of 14 years, 11 months and 7 days if the  
date the police officers started the proceedings was taken as the starting point, and a  
maximum of 15 years, 1 month and 2 days if the date of the applicant’s arrest was taken as  
the starting point.  
Having examined the circumstances of the case, the Court found that although the applicant  
had contributed to delays in the proceedings, most of the delays were attributable to the  
courts. The Court found that the applicant’s case had not been heard within a “reasonable  
time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and held unanimously that there  
had been a violation of that provision.  
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant  
EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)  
Violations Article 6 § 1  
(5) Dickmann v. Romania (no. 36017/97)  
Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Nationalisation of property  
Dora Dickmann is a Romanian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Tel Aviv (Israel).  
In 1950 the Romanian State nationalised property in Bucharest which her parents had  
purchased in 1938. The property comprised a block of five flats and adjoining land.  
As heir to the estate, Ms Dickmann brought an action claiming title to the property. The  
tribunals of fact found in her favour in a judgment that became final and unappealable.  
However, the Supreme Court of Justice granted an application by the Principal State Counsel  
for Romania to have that final judgment set aside, on the ground that the ordinary courts had  
no jurisdiction to review the application of nationalisation decrees. The State sold off two of  
the flats in the building to third parties. The applicant then brought a further action claiming  
title and the court of first instance again found in her favour in a judgment that became final  
and unappealable. The building was returned to the applicant, with the exception of the two  
flats that had been sold off.  
The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, of  
the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to accept that the domestic courts had jurisdiction to  
hear a claim to title to land. She also complained that the Supreme Court was not impartial  
and independent, as it had bowed to “political pressure” from the President of Romania and  
departed from its case-law. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol  
No. 1 (protection of property) that her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions had  
been infringed.  
Referring to its case-law, the Court found that by setting aside a final judgment, the Supreme  
Court of Justice had contravened the principle of legal certainty and thereby violated the  
applicant’s right to a fair hearing, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. It further held that the  
Supreme Court of Justice’s ruling that the courts had no jurisdiction to hear the applicants’  
claim to title to the land was in itself contrary to the right of access to a court. Consequently,  
it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 under both these heads. In  
the light of these findings, the Court considered that no separate examination of the  
- 5 -  
applicant’s complaint of a failure to ensure equality of arms in the proceedings in the  
Supreme Court of Justice was necessary.  
As to the allegation that the Supreme Court of Justice was not independent and impartial, the  
Court noted that, although the Romanian President’s statements had undoubtedly been critical  
of the judiciary, they were addressed primarily to the authorities responsible for executing  
judicial decisions, not the courts. There was nothing to suggest that they had had any  
influence on the judges of the Supreme Court who had sat in the applicant’s case.  
Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the  
Convention on that account.  
With regard to the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court noted that  
Ms Dickmann’s right of property had been established by a final judgment and had therefore  
been irrevocable. The Supreme Court’s judgment had had the effect of depriving her of her  
property. In those circumstances, the Court found that the fair balance between the demands  
of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the  
individual’s fundamental rights had been upset; the applicant had had to bear an individual  
and excessive burden and, in respect of the part of the property that had not been returned,  
continued to do so. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation  
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.  
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Romania had to  
return to Ms Dickmann within three months of the date on which this judgment became final  
the two flats that had not yet been returned to her. Failing that, the State was to pay her  
EUR 130,000 for pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded her EUR 8,000 for non-  
pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)  
(6) Gabarri Moreno v. Spain (no. 68066/01)  
Violation Article 7 § 1  
Lawfulness of length of imprisonment in view of mitigating circumstance  
Juan Gabarri Moreno is a Spanish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Madrid.  
On 4 June 1996 he was found guilty of heroin trafficking by the Madrid Audiencia Provincial  
and sentenced to eight years and a day in prison and to a fine. The Audiencia Provincial  
noted that he had been suffering from acute depression for ten years, a mental disorder which  
it accepted constituted a mitigating circumstance.  
The applicant appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court, arguing that the mitigating  
circumstance had not been taken into account and that he should have received a lesser  
sentence. In a judgment of 3 June 1997, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on the  
ground that the reduction in sentence he had been given by the Audiencia Provincial had not  
been manifestly disproportionate given the gravity of the offence. The applicant lodged an  
amparo appeal which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 21 September 2000.  
Having been in custody since 13 May 1995, the applicant was released on licence on 25 July  
1999.  
- 6 -  
The applicant complained, under Article 7 § 1 (no punishment without law) of the  
Convention, of the domestic courts’ refusal to accord him the reduction in sentence  
prescribed by the criminal law for mitigating circumstances.  
The Court noted, firstly, that State Counsel in the Supreme Court had submitted that the  
applicant ought to have been given a reduction in sentence of at least one degree on the scale  
of gravity. That submission was confirmed by the relevant domestic case-law and legislation,  
which showed that the Audiencia Provincial should have reduced the sentence by at least one  
degree.  
When the mitigating circumstance was taken into account, the applicant’s sentence under  
Spanish criminal law should have been a term of imprisonment of between six years and a  
day and eight years. The legal-certainty requirement inherent in the lawfulness principle  
required the sentence to be rectified, but that was not done. The Court therefore found that  
Mr Gabarri Moreno had been given a heavier sentence than that carried by the offence of  
which he had been convicted. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation  
of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention.  
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant  
EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment  
is available only in French.)  
Violation Article 3  
(7) Ayşe Tepe v. Turkey (no. 29422/95)  
Violation Article 5 § 3  
Allegation of ill-treatment while in police custody / Unlawfulness and length of detention in  
police custody  
Ayşe Tepe is a Turkish national who was born in 1975.  
She asserted that she had been arrested by the police on 9 December 1993 and detained at the  
headquarters of the Istanbul security police. According to the Turkish authorities, Ms Tepe  
was arrested on 12 December 1993 during a police operation against a presumed member of  
the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and taken into police custody on the same day. The  
public prosecutor ordered police custody to be extended until 27 December 1993.  
While in police custody the applicant was not assisted by a doctor. A medical examination  
carried out on her release from police custody by a doctor from the Institute of Forensic  
Medicine did not reveal any sign of violence. On the same day the applicant was taken before  
the public prosecutor, who ordered her detention pending trial. The applicant then asserted  
that she had been ill-treated while in police custody and that her deposition had been written  
under duress.  
On 30 December 1993 and again on 17 January 1994 Ms Tepe underwent two further  
medical examinations at which she was found to have pains in her shoulders and arms, a loss  
of feeling in the shoulders, chest pains, pains at her waist and in one leg, and a loss of  
strength in one leg. At the third examination Ms Tepe was found in addition to have areas of  
old bruising on her right elbow and left shoulder, a loss of feeling and pins and needles in  
both arms and pain throughout her body.  
- 7 -  
In July 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint against the police officers in whose charge she  
had been detained in which she alleged that she had been forced to sign a statement prepared  
by the police and that she had been subjected to hanging and electric shocks. The officers  
concerned were then prosecuted, but acquitted by the Istanbul Assize Court for lack of  
evidence. Proceedings instituted as a result of another complaint by the applicant, about the  
length of her detention in police custody, were discontinued.  
On 26 November 1996 the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment by the Istanbul National  
Security Court for membership of an illegal armed organisation.  
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of the  
Convention, the applicant maintained that she had been subjected to ill-treatment and even  
torture while in police custody. She further complained, under Article 5 (right to liberty and  
security) of the Convention, of the unlawfulness and length of her detention in police  
custody.  
The Court noted that Ms Tepe had not been medically examined at the beginning of her  
detention and had not had access to a lawyer or doctor of her choice while in police custody.  
After release from police custody she had had three medical examinations which had resulted  
in contradictory reports. In the absence of any explanation by the Government for the  
discrepancies, the Court concluded that the first examination, in which no signs of violence  
had been found on the applicant’s person, could not have been properly performed.  
Moreover, it had not been asserted by anyone that the signs of violence found on the  
applicant’s body could have predated her arrest.  
The Court emphasised that a State is responsible for any person in detention, who is in a  
vulnerable situation while in the charge of police officers, and that the authorities have a duty  
to protect such a person. In the present case the Government had not given any explanation of  
the cause of the marks found on the applicant, who had been held in police custody for 15  
days, during which time she had not been allowed to see a lawyer, doctor, relative or friend.  
The Court also reiterated that the acquittal of police officers suspected of inflicting ill-  
treatment did not absolve the State of its responsibility under the Convention.  
In the light of the above circumstances, and in the absence of a plausible explanation by the  
Government, the Court considered that the symptoms noted in the second and third medical  
reports had been the result of treatment for which the Government bore responsibility. It  
accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.  
As to the complaint of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, the Court noted that the  
parties disagreed about the date on which the applicant had been taken into police custody.  
As there was no evidence in the file capable of corroborating Ms Tepe’s allegations, the  
Court took the view that her deprivation of liberty had lasted 15 days without her being  
brought before a judge. It noted that her detention had been in conformity with the statutory  
provisions applicable at the material time. However, referring to its case-law, it held that  
detention in police custody for a period of 15 days without judicial supervision failed to  
satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. It accordingly held unanimously  
that there had been a violation of that provision.  
- 8 -  
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant  
EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,780 for costs and expenses. (The  
judgment is available only in French.)  
Violation Article 3  
(8) Esen v. Turkey (no. 29484/95)  
(9) Yaz v. Turkey (no. 29485/95)  
Allegation of ill-treatment while in police custody  
Esen v. Turkey  
Hakime Esen is a Turkish national who was born in 1962.  
Suspected of being a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), she was arrested by  
the police on 14 December 1993 and taken into police custody at the headquarters of the  
Istanbul security police. The public prosecutor ordered police custody to be extended until  
27 December 1993. On that date she was examined by a doctor, who noted the presence of a  
bruise 3 cm by 2 cm in area and a small swelling on the right arm near the shoulder. On the  
same day she was questioned by the public prosecutor and placed in detention pending trial.  
On 29 December 1993 and again on 17 January 1994 Mrs Esen underwent two further  
medical examinations at which she was found to have pains in her neck, back, right shoulder,  
right arm and ribcage. The doctors’ reports also mentioned lesions and bruises on her back  
and right arm, a marked loss of movement in the right hand, loss of feeling in the right arm  
and pains on flexion of the hands and wrists.  
The applicant was prosecuted for participation in the terrorist activities of the PKK. In July  
1994 she lodged a complaint in which she alleged that she had been ill-treated by the police  
officers in whose charge she had been detained. In July 1995 they were acquitted by the  
Istanbul Assize Court for lack of evidence.  
Yaz v. Turkey  
Oya Yaz is a Turkish national who was born in 1969.  
Suspected of being a member of the PKK and of lending that organisation aid and assistance,  
she was arrested on 11 December 1993 and taken into police custody at the headquarters of  
the Istanbul security police. The public prosecutor ordered police custody to be extended until  
27 December 1993. On that date she was examined by a doctor, who found no signs of  
violence on her person. On the same day she complained to the public prosecutor that she had  
been ill-treated and that her confessions had been obtained by duress. She was then placed in  
detention pending trial and transferred to Istanbul remand prison.  
On 30 December 1993 and again on 14 January 1994 Ms Yaz underwent two further medical  
examinations at which she was found to have pains in her shoulders, neck, back and armpits,  
among other places. The doctors’ reports also mentioned oedemata of the thorax and feet,  
bruising on the soles of the feet, swellings on the arms, hands and legs, and loss of movement  
of the shoulders and arms in particular.  
- 9 -  
In July 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint, alleging that she had been ill-treated by the  
police officers in whose charge she had been detained. They were acquitted by the Istanbul  
Assize Court in June 1996.  
In these two cases the applicants maintained that while in police custody they had suffered  
treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of  
the Convention.  
Referring to its case-law, the Court observed that when a person was injured in police  
custody, while entirely under the control of police officers, it was for the Government to  
provide a plausible explanation of the origins of the injuries and to produce evidence casting  
doubt on the victim’s allegations, particularly if those allegations were backed up by medical  
reports.  
The Court noted that in both cases it had not been asserted by anyone that the signs of  
violence found on the applicants’ bodies could have predated their arrest. The Government  
had provided no explanation of the cause of the lesions found on the applicants’ persons,  
whereas Ms Esen had been detained for 12 days and Ms Yaz for 15 days, during which time  
neither of them had been allowed to see a lawyer. The Court also reiterated that the acquittal  
of police officers suspected of inflicting ill-treatment did not absolve the State of its  
responsibility under the Convention.  
In the light of the above circumstances, and in the absence of a plausible explanation by the  
Government, the Court considered that the symptoms noted in the medical reports had been  
the result of treatment for which the Government bore responsibility. It accordingly held  
unanimously that in these two cases there had been violations of Article 3 of the Convention.  
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded EUR 17,718 to  
Ms Esen and EUR 32,000 to Ms Yaz for non-pecuniary damage. It further awarded each of  
them EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 616 which the Council of Europe had  
paid them in legal aid. (The judgments are available only in French.)  
(10) Özgür Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 42591/98)  
Friendly settlement  
Allegation of ill-treatment while in police custody  
Özgür Kılıç is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Izmir. In the course of a  
criminal investigation he was arrested by the police on 10 January 1997 and taken into  
custody at the headquarters of the Izmir security police. On the same day a medical  
examination revealed the existence of two wounds which had already healed on the  
applicant’s arms, but the doctor did not find any sign of violence.  
Early in the morning of 17 January 1997 Mr Kılıç was examined by a doctor, whose report  
did not mention any signs of violence but did record the applicant’s statement that he had  
been the victim of electric shock treatment. Following his medical examination the applicant  
was placed in detention pending trial and transferred to the Bergama remand prison. Still on  
17 January 1997, late in the evening, the applicant was once more examined by a doctor,  
whose report spoke of various marks on the applicant’s body.  
- 10 -  
Mr Kılıç lodged a complaint, alleging that he had been ill-treated by the police officers in  
whose custody he had been detained and by the gendarmes who had taken him to Bergama  
remand prison. The investigation concerning the police officers ended with a ruling that they  
had no case to answer; the proceedings against the gendarmes are pending before the  
governor of Izmir province.  
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of the  
Convention, the applicant maintained that he had been beaten and subjected to ill-treatment  
by the police officers in whose custody he had been detained and by the gendarmes who had  
transferred him to Bergama remand prison.  
The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to  
receive EUR 27,000 for damage and for costs and expenses.  
Moreover, the Turkish Government have made the following declaration: “The Government  
of the Republic of Turkey regret the occurrence of individual cases, like this one, of ill-  
treatment inflicted by the authorities on persons in police custody, notwithstanding the  
existing Turkish legislation and the Government’s determination to prevent such acts. The  
Government accept that inflicting torture or ill-treatment on prisoners constitutes in particular  
a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. They undertake to issue the appropriate  
instructions and to adopt all necessary measures to guarantee that the prohibition of ill-  
treatment is complied with in future. They refer in that connection to the undertakings they  
gave in the declaration made with regard to application no. 34382/97 and reiterate their  
determination to implement them. They further note that the legal and administrative  
measures recently adopted have made it possible to reduce the incidence of cases of ill-  
treatment in circumstances similar to those of the present case. ...  
The Government consider that supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of  
Europe of the execution of the Court’s judgment in the present case and those given in the  
similar cases concerning Turkey form an appropriate mechanism for guaranteeing a continual  
improvement in the situation regarding human rights protection. They undertake in that  
connection to continue their cooperation, which is necessary to attain that objective.” (The  
judgment is available only in French.)  
(11) Sünnetçi v. Turkey (no. 28632/95)  
Friendly settlement  
Allegation of torture while in police custody  
Mahmut Sünnetçi, a Turkish national, was born in 1967 and lives in Germany.  
On 22 August 1994 he was taken into police custody in Diyarbakır on suspicion of being a  
member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). On 31 August 1994 he was interrogated  
by police and confessed to his involvement in the PKK’s activities. On 13 September 1994 he  
was charged with providing explosives to other members of the PKK, establishing its  
provincial committee and bombing the premises of banks and of a political party. He was  
acquitted by the Diyarbakır National Security Court on 22 December 1998.  
Mr Sünnetçi complained, under Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading  
treatment) of the Convention, that he had been tortured while in police custody.  
- 11 -  
The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to  
receive EUR 25,000 for any damage and for costs and expenses.  
Moreover, the Government have also made the following declaration: “The Government  
regret the occurrence, as in the present case, of individual cases of ill-treatment by the  
authorities of persons detained notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of  
the Government to prevent such actions. It is accepted that the recourse to ill-treatment of  
detainees constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Government undertake to  
issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the prohibition  
of such acts and the obligation to carry out effective investigations are respected in the future.  
The Government refer in this connection to the commitments which they undertook in the  
Declaration agreed on in Application no. 34382/97 and reiterate their resolve to give effect to  
those commitments. They note that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted  
which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of ill-treatment in circumstances similar  
to those of the instant case as well as more effective investigations. ... (The judgment is  
available only in English.)  
(12) Y.F. v. Turkey (no. 24209/94)  
Violation Article 8  
Forced gynaecological examination  
Y.F., a Turkish national, was born in 1951 and lives in Bingöl (Turkey). In October 1993 he  
and his wife were taken into police custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK  
(Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). Mrs F was held in police custody for four days. She alleged  
that she was kept blindfolded and that police officers hit her with truncheons, verbally  
insulted her and threatened to rape her. On 20 October 1993 she was examined by a doctor  
and taken to a gynaecologist for a further examination. The police officers remained on the  
premises while she was examined behind a curtain. On 23 March 1994 the applicant and his  
wife were acquitted. On 19 December 1995 three police officers were charged with violating  
Mrs F.’s private life by forcing her to undergo a gynaecological examination. They were  
acquitted on 16 May 1996.  
The applicant alleged that the forced gynaecological examination of his wife had breached  
Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention.  
The Court reiterated that it was open to the applicant, as a close relative of the victim, to raise  
a complaint on her behalf, particularly having regard to her vulnerable position in the special  
circumstances of this case. It considered that, given her vulnerability in the hands of the  
authorities who had exercised full control over her during her detention, she could not be  
expected to have put up resistance to the gynaecological examination. There had accordingly  
been an interference with her right to respect for her private life. The Government had failed  
to demonstrate the existence of a medical necessity or other circumstances defined by law.  
While the Court accepted their argument that the medical examination of detainees by a  
forensic medical doctor could be an important safeguard against false accusations of sexual  
harassment or ill-treatment, it considered that any interference with a person’s physical  
integrity had to be prescribed by law and required that person’s consent. As this had not been  
the case here, the interference had not been in accordance with the law.  
- 12 -  
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention  
and awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage, to be held for his wife, and  
EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)  
Violation Article 6 § 1  
(13) Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom (nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98)  
Non-disclosure of prosecution evidence  
Martin John Edwards and Michael Lewis are both British nationals. Mr Edwards was born in  
1946 and lives in Woking (Surrey). Mr Lewis was born in 1953 and lives in Tonbridge  
(Kent).  
On 9 August 1994, following a surveillance and undercover operation, Mr Edwards was  
arrested in a van in the company of an undercover police officer. In the van was a briefcase  
containing 4.83 kilograms of 50% pure heroin. On 7 April 1995 he was convicted of  
possessing a Class A drug with intent to supply and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment.  
He appealed unsuccessfully.  
On 25 July 1995 Mr Lewis was arrested by uniformed police officers in the car park of a  
public house after he had shown two undercover police officers some counterfeit bank notes.  
More counterfeit notes were found when his house was searched. On 12 November 1996 he  
pleaded guilty to three charges of possession of counterfeit currency notes with the intention  
of delivering them to another. He was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment.  
In both cases an application by the prosecution to withhold material evidence had been  
granted on the ground that it would not assist the defence and there were genuine public-  
interest reasons for not disclosing it. The judge had also refused a request to exclude the  
evidence of the undercover officers.  
Both applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that they had been  
deprived of a fair trial because they had been entrapped into committing offences by agents  
provocateurs and the procedure followed by the domestic courts concerning non-disclosure  
of evidence had been unfair.  
The Court reasoned that it was essential for it to examine the procedure whereby the plea of  
entrapment had been determined in each case, so as to ensure that the rights of the defence  
had been adequately protected. In the present case the undisclosed evidence had related, or  
might have related, to a question of fact decided by the trial judge (namely whether the  
applicants had indeed been entrapped into committing the offences in question). Had the  
defence been able to persuade the judge that the police had acted improperly, the prosecution  
would in effect have had to be discontinued. The prosecution’s applications to withhold the  
evidence had thus been of determinative importance to the applicants’ trials. Despite that, the  
applicants had been denied access to the evidence and their lawyers had been unable to argue  
the case for entrapment in full before the judge. Moreover, the judges who had rejected the  
defence submissions on entrapment had already seen prosecution evidence that might have  
been relevant to that issue.  
In those circumstances, the procedure followed to determine the issues of disclosure of  
evidence and entrapment had not complied with the requirements to provide adversarial  
- 13 -  
proceedings and equality of arms and had not incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the  
interests of the accused. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of  
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself just  
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained. It awarded each applicant EUR 22,000  
for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)  
***  
These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s  
judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).  
Registry of the European Court of Human Rights  
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex  
Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)  
Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)  
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)  
Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with  
alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998  
a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time  
Commission and Court.