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,
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
2009 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
1
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
