The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lived in GPE before moving abroad . Her present place of residence is unknown to the Court . She was represented before the ORG by Mr G. Dannemann , a lawyer practising in GPE and GPE . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , ORG , and , subsequently , PERSON ORG , ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

Following a tax audit ORG ( PERSON ) came to the conclusion that the applicant , a self - employed dentist , had transferred MONEY ( ORG ) to GPE without having declared this income in her tax returns . The tax authorities subsequently instituted proceedings with a view to changing the applicant 's income tax assessment .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of tax evasion .

By DATE the applicant moved abroad .

On DATE ORG issued a national warrant of arrest against the applicant . On DATE ORG quashed the national arrest warrant and issued an international arrest warrant . To date , it has not been possible to execute this warrant .

On DATE ORG ordered the provisional attachment of the applicant 's goods ( dinglicher Arrest ) in order to secure expected claims for supplementary tax payments for DATE of CARDINAL DEM .

On DATE the applicant brought an action with the Baden - ORG against ORG to set aside the order of the provisional attachment of her goods .

The provisional attachment of the applicant 's goods was subsequently executed by the registration of mortgages on the applicant 's real property . The applicant , on dates unknown to the ORG , lodged several constitutional complaints with ORG , claiming that these enforcement measures prior to a court 's decision on her liability to pay the taxes claimed violated the presumption of innocence .

On DATE the applicant changed her action to set aside the order of the provisional attachment of her goods into an action for a declaration that this order had been unlawful ( PERSON ) . The applicant argued that she had a legitimate interest to obtain this declaration as she wanted to rely on it in official liability proceedings ( ORG ) before the civil courts pursuant to Section CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the Baden - ORG held a preliminary hearing ( PERSON ) in the applicant 's case .

On DATE the Baden - ORG , following a hearing , decided that the financial courts had jurisdiction over the subject - matter .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal against this decision as inadmissible .

On DATE the Baden - ORG decided that the applicant 's action was admissible . In particular , the fact that the applicant could constantly be reached via her counsel , but did not disclose her actual place of residence because of the arrest warrant against her , did not render her actions inadmissible .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant 's constitutional complaint concerning violations of the presumption of innocence by several enforcement measures . It appears that ORG , on dates unknown to the ORG , refused to entertain further constitutional complaints lodged by the applicant concerning the same subject - matter .

On DATE ORG dismissed ORG appeal on points of law against the decision of the Baden - Wurttemberg Tax Court of DATE as ill - founded and the applicant 's counter - appeal on points of law as inadmissible .

On DATE the Baden - ORG dismissed the applicant 's action concerning the lawfulness of the provisional attachment of her goods as ill - founded and refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal on points of law . In its judgment , ORG stated that it was sufficiently likely , on the balance of probabilities , that the applicant intentionally evaded taxes . Consequently , the amount of taxes due could be estimated also for DATE .

The applicant appealed against the Baden - Wurttemberg Tax Court 's decision not to grant leave to appeal on points of law .

On DATE ( decision served on DATE ) ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal as inadmissible , because no appeal on points of law lay against the judgment of the Baden - Wurttemberg Tax Court .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decision of ORG of DATE , claiming , inter alia , that the proceedings lasted unreasonably long and that the decision violated the presumption of innocence .

On DATE ORG , without giving reasons for its decision , refused to admit the applicant 's constitutional complaint .

On DATE ORG changed the applicant 's notices of assessment for DATE , increasing the applicant 's liability to pay income tax . It also issued a tax assessment notice for DATE . The applicant lodged an objection ( PERSON ) against these notices with ORG .

On DATE ORG issued a tax assessment notice for the applicant for DATE . The applicant lodged an objection ( PERSON ) also against this notice with ORG .

On DATE the applicant brought an action with the Baden - ORG against ORG to declare void the tax assessment notices for DATE .

On DATE the Baden - Wurttemberg Tax Court held a preliminary hearing ( PERSON ) in the applicant 's case concerning the lawfulness of the changed tax assessment notices .

On DATE the Baden - ORG , following a hearing ( in which the actions concerning the lawfulness of the changed tax assessment notices and the provisional attachment of the applicant 's goods were treated together ) , decided that the financial courts also had jurisdiction over this subject - matter .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal as inadmissible .

On DATE the Baden - ORG decided that the applicant 's action , for the same reasons as the joined action concerning the provisional attachment of her goods , was admissible .

On DATE ORG dismissed ORG appeal on points of law against the decision of the Baden - Wurttemberg Tax Court of DATE as ill - founded and the applicant 's counter appeal on points of law as inadmissible .

On DATE the Baden - Wurttemberg Tax Court dismissed the applicant 's action to declare the tax assessment notices for DATE to be void as ill - founded .

The applicant subsequently appealed against the decision of the Baden - Wurttemberg Tax Court not to grant her leave to appeal on points of law . The case is currently still pending before ORG .

On DATE the Baden - ORG rejected the applicant 's motion for a stay of execution in respect of the payment of supplementary income tax for DATE .

In its reasoning , the Baden - Wurttemberg Tax Court stated that there was no reasonable doubt that the applicant intentionally understated her income in DATE in dispute . It considered it to be “ impossible that the criminal court later could merely assume a grossly negligent tax evasion ( ... ) , as the manipulations of her receipts and expenditure by the applicant , by their very nature , could only have been carried out intentionally . ” Consequently , the tax authorities were entitled to estimate her income in DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . She claimed inter alia that the decision of the Baden - Wurttemberg Tax Court of DATE , by stating that she was guilty of tax evasion , violated the presumption of innocence .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant 's constitutional complaint .

On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the applicant during the time the arrest warrant against her could not be executed .

On DATE ORG decided that the applicant 's rights under LAW had not been violated by this decision , no indictment having been issued against her as yet .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . She claimed that the decision of ORG to discontinue the criminal proceedings against her , without the arrest warrant being quashed , violated her rights under LAW .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant 's constitutional complaint , as the latter , not giving sufficient reasons for a possible human rights violation , was inadmissible .

The applicant instituted numerous further proceedings in the NORP tax courts , applying to set aside further notices of tax assessment for DATE issued by ORG and to stay the execution of various enforcement measures .

DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL constitutional complaints concerning these proceedings . ORG did not admit any of these complaints , without giving reasons for its decisions .

On DATE the applicant therefore challenged CARDINAL judges of ORG on grounds of bias . She was subsequently informed by a letter of that court that a challenge of the judges was only possible before the beginning of the hearing of a case .

Furthermore , on DATE , in one of these sets of proceedings , ORG attached the applicant 's claims against CARDINAL banks in GPE .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for an interim order , claiming that these attachments , not leaving to her a minimum living wage any longer , violated her rights to life and physical integrity .

In its decision of DATE ORG refused to admit another constitutional complaint concerning the applicant 's tax litigation and cautioned her that she might be fined for having misused the right of petition ( PERSON ) if she lodged further similar complaints .

Under LAW ( Abgabenordnung ) , the period of limitation during which the tax authorities are entitled to change a tax assessment depends inter alia on the question whether the taxpayer intentionally or negligently evaded taxes .

Under the heading “ statute of limitation for tax assessment ” ( GPE ) , Section CARDINAL of LAW , as far as relevant , provides as follows :

“ ORG limit for tax assessment .

The assessment of taxes as well as its revocation or change shall be excluded on expiry of the time limit for tax assessment . ( ... )

DATE for customs and excise ( ... ) .

DATE for all taxes ( ... ) not mentioned in no . CARDINAL .

The time limit for tax assessment shall be DATE insofar as a tax has been evaded and DATE as far as a tax has been understated with gross negligence . ( ... ) ”

Tax evasion , when committed intentionally , is a criminal offence which is punishable with DATE imprisonment or a fine pursuant to LAW of LAW .

Understating taxes with gross negligence ( leichtfertige GPE ) is punishable as a regulatory offence ( PERSON ) pursuant to Section CARDINAL of LAW .

Section CARDINAL of LAW , on the relationship between criminal proceedings and tax assessment proceedings , provides that the rights and duties of the person liable to pay taxes and of the tax authorities are determined by the provisions applicable in the respective proceedings .

In proceedings before the tax courts , an action to set aside a decision of the tax authorities ( ORG ) can be changed into an action for a declaration that the relevant decision was unlawful ( PERSON ) as soon as the decision has been executed . The latter action is admissible if the plaintiff can prove to have a legitimate interest in this declaration . It is accepted that the plaintiff has such a legitimate interest if he states that he wants to rely on the declaration by the tax courts that the authority 's decision was unlawful in subsequent official liability proceedings .

The conditions of liability of an official ( Amtshaftung ) are laid down in Section CARDINAL of LAW . Pursuant to this LAW , a person can claim compensation for breaches of duty committed by an official . It is the civil courts which have jurisdiction in these liability proceedings .

Pursuant to Section CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , NORP law , in principle , does not allow for an in - absentia - trial . A limited number of exceptions to this rule are notably laid down in Sections CARDINAL et seq . A hearing may , in particular , be held in the defendant 's absence in cases in which he has been summoned correctly and only a fine of up to CARDINAL DATE rates ( PERSON ) is to be expected ( Section CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) .

According to Section CARDINAL of LAW , applied by analogy , the competent public prosecutor is entitled to temporarily discontinue the preliminary criminal proceedings , if the absence of the defendant prevents the holding of a main hearing for a considerable period of time .


Violation of Art. 2 (substantive and procedural);Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;No violation of Art. 14;No violation of Art. 17;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The facts as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows .

All of the applicants reside in GPE .

The applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON are relatives of PERSON , who died during the NORP incident .

The following applicants are all relatives of persons who also died during the NORP incident :

– Hakkı Yılmaz is the father of PERSON ( deceased ) ;

– ORG is the father of PERSON ( deceased ) ;

– Cemal Poyraz is the father of PERSON , ( deceased ) ;

– Mustafa Tunç is the father of PERSON ( deceased ) ;

– Mahmut Engin is the father of Sezgin Engin ( deceased ) ;

– PERSON is the husband of PERSON ( deceased ) ;

– Veli Kaya is the father of ORG ( deceased ) ;

– Mehmet Gürgen is the father of PERSON ( deceased ) ;

– Çiçek Yıldırım is the mother of PERSON ( deceased ) ;

– Hüseyin Sel is the father of PERSON ( deceased ) ; and

– Mukaddes Gündüz is the wife of PERSON ( deceased ) .

The remaining applicants are relatives of persons who died during the PERSON incident :

– Hacer Baltacı is the wife of PERSON ( deceased ) ;

– PERSON is the brother of PERSON ( deceased ) ;

– Zeynel Abit Çabuk is the father of PERSON ( deceased ) ;

– PERSON is the wife of PERSON ( deceased ) ; and

– Aligül GPE is the son of GPE ( deceased ) .

Gazi is a neighbourhood located within the Gaziosmanpaşa district of GPE . A majority of residents living in the NORP neighbourhood belongs to the Alevi sect .

At TIME on DATE , a group of unidentified persons opened fire from a taxi on CARDINAL cafés situated in the NORP neighbourhood . The shooting continued for TIME . An elderly person , PERSON , was killed and CARDINAL persons were wounded . Many shops were badly damaged during the shooting . The perpetrators of the attack killed the driver of the taxi and fled .

Following this incident , residents of the neighbourhood gathered on the street outside the cafés and in front of the Cemevi to protest against the indifference displayed by police officers after the shooting . People also gathered outside the hospitals , where injured people were being treated . At TIME , the group started marching towards the local police station . The police set up barricades with panzers and subsequently attacked the group with their truncheons and the butts of their weapons .

At TIME on DATE , the GPE governor and the chief of police went to the PERSON governor ’s office and held a meeting with the community leaders to stop the incidents . The demonstrators began to calm down .

At that moment CARDINAL panzers approached the demonstrators and began firing at them . As a result , PERSON was killed on the spot and QUANTITY persons were injured .

In TIME CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL of people from the surrounding neighbourhoods joined the demonstrators . According to the applicants , there was no provocation by any terrorist organisation . Some of the demonstrators started throwing stones and coins at the police barricades .

At TIME began firing from behind their barricades . Snipers were positioned on nearby buildings , targeting the protesters . During the firing , PERSON and Sezgin Engin were killed and a number of others were injured .

The killing of these QUANTITY persons raised the tension and the demonstrators began advancing towards the police barricades at TIME Uniformed and plainclothes police officers , who had positioned themselves behind the barricades , on the side streets and on some of the buildings , fired intensively . For TIME , the police officers chased a number of demonstrators who were trying to run away from the scene and shot them . PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were shot and killed . CARDINAL persons were injured . The police prevented the demonstrators from taking the wounded persons to hospital .

At TIME DATE the police attacked the crowd who were attending the funerals of PERSON and PERSON . Military reinforcements were called to the area . The applicants state that the group did not protest against the soldiers .

At TIME a curfew was imposed in the area .

NORP In total , QUANTITY people , including a person in the café , PERSON , and the taxi driver were killed , and CARDINAL people were injured during these events .

The events in the NORP neighbourhood sparked widespread outrage throughout the country and a number of demonstrations were held in different parts of GPE during which the actions of the police were condemned .

On DATE a large crowd gathered in the PERSON neighbourhood , located within the LOC district of GPE . The group began marching towards the funerals of those who had been killed during the NORP incident .

At TIME DATE , the crowd came across barricades which had been set up by the police in a square outside a primary school . A number of demonstrators started throwing stones towards the barricades , upon which , without any warning , uniformed and plainclothes police officers began firing at the crowd . No one in the group returned fire . None of the police officers were killed or injured . PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were killed during the shooting . CARDINAL people were injured .

Upon receipt of information that CARDINAL cafés in the NORP neighbourhood were under fire , police officers were sent to the scene of the incident . When the police officers arrived in front of the cafés , they saw a crowd of CARDINAL people who were shouting slogans against the police . The crowd attacked the police vehicles and the police officers were unable to conduct an investigation . Therefore they called for reinforcements . Following the arrival of additional security forces , the police conducted an investigation and wounded persons were sent to hospital . At the same time , some people from the neighbourhood joined the protesting group . Together , they started shouting slogans , and throwing coins and stones at the police . Some of the protesters had fire bombs in their hands . With the participation of other people from the neighbourhood , the crowd became larger and they started to march towards FAC . Many shops and vehicles were set on fire . Some masked men in the crowd threw fire bombs towards the police officers . In order to prevent the crowd from going further , the police officers built barricades . Security forces verbally warned people to stop . They then used pressurised water and batons to disperse the crowd . When they were not able to disperse them , they fired warning shots in the air . However , the crowd continued to walk towards the security forces and attacked the panzers with fire bombs . The riot in the NORP neighbourhood lasted for DATE . At the end of the second day , a curfew was imposed in the area . During the riot , CARDINAL people died and QUANTITY persons ( CARDINAL residents , CARDINAL police officers and CARDINAL soldiers ) were wounded .

Following the incidents that took place on DATE , the security forces received intelligence reports about further possible riots in the LOC area . In order to prevent any untoward occurrences , a meeting was organised on DATE at the LOC district security directorate building . The district director of security , the mayor of the neighbourhood and the president of the Pir Sultan Abdal Association participated in the meeting , which was presided over by the district governor . During the meeting , the situation was discussed and residents were requested not to be influenced by provocation . In TIME of DATE , upon threats from a terrorist organisation , all the shops in the neighbourhood closed down as a sign of protest . A second meeting was held to discuss the situation . At TIME DATE , a group of CARDINAL people gathered in front of the Pir Sultan Abdal Association in the PERSON neighbourhood and started to march towards the Örnek neighbourhood . The security forces announced that the march was illegal and requested the participants to disperse . The group started shouting slogans and continued to march . The number of people increased to CARDINAL . Some of the protesters were wearing red berets and scarves . Some people from the crowd threw stones and coins at the security forces . As the tension increased , the group started attacking the security forces with bricks and stones . The security forces took precautions and established a security line . After some time , armed men , who were amongst the group , started shooting towards the security forces and the crowd . The security forces fired warning shots in the air and the attack stopped . The wounded persons were taken immediately to hospital . While the wounded were being evacuated , the crowd continued shouting slogans and throwing stones from behind the shelters . Traffic was also halted by burning tyres . Military forces arrived at the scene , a curfew was established and the entrance to the neighbourhood was placed under strict control .

Following the incidents , the domestic authorities immediately commenced investigating the events . Several witness statements were taken , autopsies were conducted and the bullets recovered from the bodies of the wounded and dead persons were sent for ballistic examination . CARDINAL ballistic reports were prepared by ORG on CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively . According to these reports , none of the bullets that had been recovered from the bodies of the victims matched the weapons of the security forces who were on duty during the CARDINAL incidents .

In accordance with LAW . ORG on ORG , in DATE the families of the deceased persons were paid CARDINAL NORP Liras ( GPE ) , the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) , by way of compensation from ORG and ORG ( ORG ve Dayanışmayı ORG Fonu ) .

On DATE PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Sabahat ORG and Cemal Poyraz filed a criminal complaint with the PERSON public prosecutor against ORG , the Governor of GPE , the Director of ORG and the police officers who were involved in the incidents of DATE in the NORP district . They maintained that their relatives had been killed by police officers who had used more force than was absolutely necessary . They further alleged that the crowd which protested against the police had not used firearms and that the police had opened fire at the crowd without any warning . They maintained that the police should have first used pressurised water , tear gas or plastic bullets to disperse the demonstrators . According to the complainants , the police deliberately used firearms against the demonstrators who were residents of the NORP district and who belonged to the Alevi sect .

Following this criminal complaint , ORG commenced an investigation into the events . On DATE he issued a decision of non - jurisdiction to examine the complaint against PERSON , the Governor of GPE . The prosecutor accordingly sent the file to ORG for further investigation .

On DATE the public prosecutor issued a decision of non - prosecution against PERSON , the Head of ORG .

On DATE the prosecutor decided that no criminal prosecution could be initiated against GPE , the Minister of the Interior . He held that , in his capacity as the Minister , Mr Menteşe did not have legal responsibility concerning the alleged events .

On DATE , the public prosecutor also decided to separate the investigation concerning the death of PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON from the other killings . This file was accordingly registered under file no . DATE .

On DATE the public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG against QUANTITY police officers who had been on duty during the demonstrations DATE . The indictment involved the death of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . In his indictment , the prosecutor relied on witness statements , medical reports , police reports , autopsy reports , video footage and newspaper clippings . He stated that , following the attack on the cafés located in the NORP district and upon provocation from an illegal organisation , the residents of the neighbourhood had started protesting against the police . The crowd marched towards the local police station , chanting slogans , and throwing stones and fire bombs . Some people among the group fired at the police officers . The crowd was shouting slogans to incite hatred between the PERSON and NORP . The prosecutor further maintained that the police panzers had opened fire at the crowd to disperse the demonstrators and , as a result , PERSON was shot and killed . A police officer , identified as PERSON , had further shot and killed PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . Another police officer , whose identity could not be established , shot and killed PERSON . PERSON , together with Officer PERSON , killed PERSON . The prosecutor alleged that the officers in the panzer , together with Officer PERSON , had shot and killed PERSON . The prosecutor therefore requested the court to prosecute these officers for intentional homicide under LAW .

Mukaddes Gündüz ( wife of PERSON ) , PERSON ( father of PERSON ) , PERSON ( mother of PERSON ) , PERSON ( father of PERSON ) , PERSON ( husband of PERSON ) , PERSON ( father of PERSON ) , ORG ( father of PERSON ) and PERSON ( husband of PERSON ) intervened in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG decided to transfer the case to another city for security reasons as its location was very close to the vicinity where the incident had taken place .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG and decided to transfer the case to ORG , QUANTITY away from GPE .

On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing . It decided to send letters rogatory to a number of courts to take statements from CARDINAL eye - witnesses . It also decided that taking oral evidence from another CARDINAL witnesses would be considered at a later stage . It finally requested the public prosecutor to find the current addresses of the CARDINAL accused police officers who , since the incident , had been posted elsewhere in the country . It adjourned the examination of the case until DATE .

On DATE ORG stayed the trial on the ground that the indictment lacked the prior authorisation of ORG to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers . It therefore sent the case - file to the governor ’s office in GPE , in accordance with the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants . The applicants filed an objection against this decision with ORG .

On DATE ORG decided that the decision of ORG to stay the proceedings was not a final decision and , as such , ORG did not have jurisdiction to examine this appeal . On DATE the prosecutor at ORG appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG of ORG confirmed that ORG was not the competent forum to examine the appeal request . Accordingly , the case file was transferred to ORG .

On DATE ORG found in line with the applicants’ objection and decided to quash the decision of ORG dated DATE . It held that a prior authorisation from ORG was not necessary to commence the prosecution of the accused police officers .

On DATE ORG insisted that its decision of CARDINAL DATE was valid and that the authorisation of ORG was required to try the defendants . It decided to send the file to ORG to obtain a written order instructing the public prosecutor at ORG to refer the case to ORG . The GPE public prosecutor was requested to forward the file to ORG .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor sent the file to ORG together with his observations , in which he stated that the issue had already been examined by ORG of ORG and that , in his opinion , it was not necessary for ORG to issue a written order .

DATE . On DATE ORG returned the file to ORG , rejecting its request for a written order .

On DATE the president of ORG submitted a CARDINAL - page letter informing the court about his decision to abstain from sitting as a member of the court during the prosecution of the police officers . In his letter , the president stated that it was impossible for him to remain impartial and independent during the trial of the police officers when his own life was being protected by members of the security forces . He also stated that , in his opinion , the police officers were not guilty and the NORP district incident was a premeditated riot against the security forces .

On DATE ORG resumed the trial and held a preliminary hearing . The president of the court , who had abstained from hearing the case , was replaced by another judge .

On DATE ORG held the first hearing in the case . The defendants did not attend the hearing but were represented by their lawyers . During the hearing , the court heard testimonies from the interveners , namely PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Cemal Poyraz and PERSON . All interveners complained that the police had used excessive force against the demonstrators , which had led to the killing of their relatives . As none of them were eye - witnesses to the events , they were unable to give precise details about the incident . However they asked the court to punish those who were responsible for the killings . DATE , the court heard evidence from CARDINAL people who had been injured during the Gazi Incident . In their statements , both witnesses stated that they had been severely beaten by the police . They also identified the accused officer PERSON as the officer who had beaten them . At the end of the hearing , the court ordered the detention on remand of CARDINAL of the defendants . It also summoned the remainder of the defendants to the next hearing .

In its hearing held on DATE , the court took statements from CARDINAL accused police officers . Before the court , the defendants stated the following :

“ At that time , I was a working at ORG . Following the attack on the cafés , I was called to the scene with other police officers . I was in command of CARDINAL of the units . During the incident , I was in civilian clothes , equipped with a handgun . I did not have a rifle or other firearms . When I arrived at the scene , I saw that a huge crowd had already gathered in front of the police station . Some of the demonstrators were throwing stones and fire bombs at the police officers . There were terrorists amongst the demonstrators . They set fire to a white car and a gas container was thrown at this car from a nearby building . The demonstrations continued for TIME . With the help of CARDINAL panzers , the police officers were trying to disperse the crowd . At some point , the demonstrators marched back but I did not follow them . I stayed near the police station the whole time . Some civilians fired at the police officers from the roofs of the buildings . I did not fire at the crowd . I deny the charges brought against me . ”

“ When I arrived in the NORP district , there was a huge gathering . The demonstrators were carrying banners . The officers warned them and fired in the air . Some of the demonstrators fired at the police . I was equipped with a handgun ; I did not have a rifle . I admit that I am the person in the photograph holding a stick with my right hand and a gun with my left hand . However the security of the gun was locked . I did not fire at the demonstrators . ”

DATE , the court heard the statements of CARDINAL other defendants who had been on duty in the panzers at the time of the incident . All of the accused officers denied firing at the crowd . They stated that there were QUANTITY panzers at the scene on DATE . The panzers had acted as protective shields for the police officers who were trying to disperse the crowd . According to the accused officers , the crowd was not peaceful ; the demonstrators were chanting slogans , and throwing stones and fire bombs at the police . The CARDINAL panzers had been ordered to drive towards the demonstrators to force them to disperse . All the police officers acknowledged that they had had handguns but denied having had rifles .

On DATE the court heard the statements of CARDINAL other accused police officers , who maintained that the crowd was not peaceful , but was chanting slogans , and throwing stones and fire bombs at the police . They denied firing at the crowd and stated that some people in the group had fired at the police . DATE , the court took statements from ORG , who had intervened in the proceedings , and CARDINAL more eye - witnesses . Their accounts may be summarised as follows :

“ I am PERSON brother . When PERSON did not come home on DATE of the incident , I was worried about him . I therefore went to the NORP district looking for him . It was very crowded . There was a clash . The demonstrators were throwing stones at the police . I saw CARDINAL dead bodies near a wall . I later learned that these belonged to PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . Uniformed and plainclothes police officers were firing at the crowd . I saw the accused officer , PERSON , shooting at the crowd with a MCARDINAL type rifle . I continued looking for my brother . TIME , I witnessed the killing of ORG . He was shot by a police officer near the high school . I was not able to find my brother and I returned home . TIME , as I was watching the events from the TV , I recognised my brother . He was amongst the demonstrators , throwing stones at the police . We were later informed that he was shot dead during the incidents . ”

“ On DATE I went to the NORP district . When I arrived near the police station , a clash broke out . Police officers targeted the demonstrators and fired at them . I saw the accused police officer PERSON firing at ORG . PERSON was in civilian clothes , equipped with a rifle . ”

“ At the time of the incident , I was working at the Cemevi . Following the attack on the cafés , we tried to convince the residents to calm down . At TIME a panzer drove towards our building and projected a light . Thereafter I heard gunshots . PERSON was shot and killed during the shooting . Because of the light , I was unable to see whether the firing came from the panzer or somewhere else . ”

“ I am the brother of PERSON who died during the Gazi incident . Following the attack on the cafés , together with PERSON and my younger sister PERSON we approached the police station to see what was going on . CARDINAL plainclothes police officer , namely PERSON , started beating me . Then some other police officers started firing at the crowd . PERSON was shot as a result of the shooting . She was shot by a plainclothes police officer who was wearing jeans and holding a rifle . I later learned from the press that his name was PERSON . ”

“ I am the neighbour of PERSON who was shot dead during the NORP incident . On DATE of the incident , ORG was worried about her daughter who had gone to school . When she saw that other students were returning to their houses , she wanted to go out and find her daughter . I accompanied her . Together , we went towards the crowd . When we were in front of the pharmacy , ORG climbed on a ladder in order to be able to see her daughter in the crowd . Suddenly there was shooting , and I saw PERSON fall down . She was shot by a police officer who was standing on the opposite side of the road . I can not identify the officer as he was wearing a helmet . ”

“ PERSON is my relative . On DATE of the incident , we went out to search for ORG ’s daughter who had gone to school in TIME . Fadime climbed on a ladder in front of the pharmacy , looking for her daughter . She was shot in the face by police officers standing on the opposite side of the building . ”

“ On DATE at TIME together with my sister - in - law PERSON , we went out looking for ORG ’s daughter . We first went to the Cemevi , then continued walking . PERSON saw a ladder and climbed on it to find her daughter in the crowd . At that time plainclothes and uniformed police officers started firing at the crowd . PERSON was shot in the face . I could not see who shot her . I just saw police officers shooting at the crowd . ”

On DATE the court held its fourth hearing and took the statement of an accused police officer , PERSON . Mr PERSON maintained that he had been on duty in one of the panzers during the NORP incident . He explained that the panzers had been used as shields to protect the police officers from the crowd . He stated that all of the officers in the panzer were equipped with handguns .

DATE , the court further heard oral evidence from CARDINAL witnesses , namely PERSON and PERSON . Both witnesses had been working at the Cemevi at the time of the incidents . They maintained that , following the attack on the cafés on DATE , people started gathering in front of the Cemevi . While they were waiting peacefully in front of the building , at TIME a panzer approached and projected its lights towards the Cemevi . The witnesses recalled hearing gun shots and maintained that PERSON had been shot and killed and several people wounded as a result of this shooting .

On DATE the court heard witness statements , which may be summarised as follows :

“ I am a police officer . On DATE of the incident , we were called to the NORP district as reinforcement . We waited in front of the local police station for a long time . We were confronted with a large gathering . They were shouting slogans . In TIME , military forces arrived at the scene . The crowd was attacking the police barricade with stones and bricks . Fire bombs were thrown at the police . As I was behind , I could not see clearly what was going on near the barricades , but at some point the crowd started marching back . Some officers followed them . I heard screams and gunshots but I never left the police station . I saw that some of the police officers from the anti - terrorism branch were equipped with MPCARDINAL rifles and PERSON . They were wearing bullet proof vests . ”

“ I was waiting in LOC the night of the incident . At TIME , I saw a panzer which projected its lights onto the building . Then from behind the panzer , I heard gun shots . Many people were hit during the firing . We tried to take the wounded persons to hospital . CARDINAL of the wounded persons died on the spot . I later learned that his name was PERSON . ”

“ I am a journalist . I work for CARDINAL of the DATE magazines . On DATE when I heard about the NORP incident , I went to the district at TIME When I was in front of the police station , I heard an explosion . Then I saw the panzers . They were trying to extinguish a taxi that was on fire . On the left side , I saw police officers shooting in the air with their hand guns . From their clothes , I understood that they were from ORG . I saw that many of the police officers acted in panic . A commander shouted , “ Stop or you will shoot each other ” . Someone from a nearby building threw a gas container at the burning taxi . The car exploded . Children were attacking the shops by throwing stones . I saw some people with fire bombs ; their faces were covered . I assumed they were members of an illegal organisation . They were throwing these fire bombs at the panzers . An announcement was made from the Cemevi , asking the residents to go home . The crowd started calming down . I went to a nearby café to wait . After some time , someone rushed into the café and shouted , “ They ’ve started attacking ” . When we went to the Cemevi , I saw that a panzer was projecting lights on the crowd , and guns were fired from behind the panzers . Many people were wounded . PERSON died on the spot . ”

“ I am the director of the Cemevi . I was watching TV when I heard about the attack on the cafés . Immediately , I went to the Cemevi . A group of CARDINAL persons had gathered in front of our building . The mayor of the district talked to the group and told them to go home . While we were trying to organise the funeral of PERSON , at QUANTITY two panzers approached our building . CARDINAL of them projected its lights onto the building . At first , I heard CARDINAL gun shots . Then the shooting continued . A person who was waiting in front of the Cemevi was shot and killed . ”

“ PERSON , who was killed during the NORP incident , was my colleague . On DATE of the incident , I was at Fevzi ’s apartment in LOC . Together we were watching a football game . While we were watching TV , we heard about the attack on the cafés . We did not go out that night . The following TIME at TIME we went out . When we approached the Cemevi , we came across a huge crowd . Our aim was to catch the bus . However , at that moment we heard gun fire . We saw someone fall down . Fevzi went to help him . I then saw CARDINAL police officers pointing their guns at us . CARDINAL of them was wearing a uniform ; the other was in civilian clothes . The police officer who was dressed in civilian clothes was holding a MCARDINAL rifle . They both fired at us . Fevzi was shot from a distance of QUANTITY . ”

On DATE the court heard the statements of CARDINAL interveners , PERSON , PERSON and ORG , none of whom had been eye - witnesses to the incident . They all requested the court to punish those responsible for the killing of their relatives . DATE , the court heard evidence from PERSON and PERSON . In her statement PERSON submitted that she was living in the NORP district at the time of the incident . On DATE of the incident , she was at home when she heard the attacks on the cafés . She went out with her mother to see what was going on . She witnessed police officers attacking the crowd . She was severely beaten by the police . She saw the dead body of PERSON and witnessed the death of PERSON . She stated that PERSON was standing right in front of her when she had been shot in the face . However , the witness had not been able to see who had fired the shot .

When asked about his recollection of the incident , the second witness PERSON explained that on CARDINAL DATE at QUANTITY he had gone out to see the events . The streets had been extremely crowded . He recalled hearing gun shots and seeing a group of demonstrators throwing stones at the police . He also remembered seeing CARDINAL police officers , in civilian clothes , firing with rifles from behind a car . He explained that , as a result of the firing , QUANTITY persons had been shot and killed . He subsequently learned that amongst the dead were PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . The witness maintained that the killing of these persons had raised the tension and the crowd had started throwing stones at the police . He recalled seeing CARDINAL uniformed police officers fire at the crowd , targeting the demonstrators .

While the proceedings before ORG were under way , on DATE the ORG public prosecutor filed another indictment with ORG against the QUANTITY police officers PERSON and PERSON for the killing of PERSON and ORG during the NORP incident . On DATE ORG decided to join these proceedings to those already pending before ORG . At its hearing on DATE , ORG endorsed this decision . The applicants PERSON and PERSON intervened in those proceedings . At its hearing held on DATE , the court took their statements . Both PERSON and Mr ORG asked the court to find the police officers who had shot and killed their sons .

On DATE the court heard the testimony of PERSON , the mother of ORG . She gave the following account :

“ On DATE I went to the NORP district together with my son to visit a friend . On the way , we saw a large group of people . Suddenly , the group started running away . My son panicked and tried to escape . Police officers in civilian clothes fired at the people who were running away . My son was shot . I saw the officer who shot ORG . He was in civilian clothes wearing a coat . I also saw the same officer shoot PERSON . ”

When asked to identify the officer who had shot her son , PERSON identified PERSON amongst the defendants . She also stated that it was the same police officer who had shot PERSON .

DATE the court heard the statement of PERSON . She stated :

“ I was in the NORP district to visit a relative . I stayed there on DATE and on DATE TIME I went out to go back to my house . Near the school , which is close to the Cemevi , I met ORG and his mother . Suddenly a clash broke out and ORG was shot by a police officer . The officer , who shot ORG from CARDINAL metres away , was in civilian clothes , holding a truncheon with one hand and a gun with the other . People were chased by the police . I also saw panzers . ”

When the witness was asked to identify the police officer who had shot ORG , she pointed out PERSON and confirmed before the court that it was PERSON who had shot PERSON .

At its ninth hearing on DATE , the court took evidence from CARDINAL eye - witnesses . Their accounts may be summarised as follows :

“ I was in the NORP district when the incidents took place . I first saw the panzers and the officers who had been positioned behind the panzers . There was a group of people waiting in front of the panzers . Suddenly the panzers started driving towards the gathering . People started running away . I saw PERSON being shot and she fell down . She was shot from a distance of QUANTITY . I did not see who shot her . Zeynep was not attacking the officers and she was not a member of an illegal group ; she was just trying to run away from the police . ”

“ I was in the NORP district at that time . There was a large group of people out on the streets . Amongst the group , I recognised PERSON , who is a relative . PERSON was throwing stones at the police . The police started firing at the group and PERSON fell down . I saw CARDINAL police officers equipped with rifles . CARDINAL of them was wearing a uniform , the other one was in civilian clothes . ”

When the witness was asked by the court to identify the police officer who had shot PERSON , he pointed out PERSON amongst the defendants .

DATE . ORG further held DATE hearings until DATE and heard testimonies from CARDINAL more witnesses , mainly journalists who had reported the incidents . The defendant police officers PERSON and PERSON were released from detention on DATE and DATE respectively pending trial .

On DATE the court delivered its judgment . Basing itself on autopsy reports , ballistics reports , incident reports , testimonies , photographs and video footage of the incident , the court found it established that police officer PERSON had shot and killed PERSON , PERSON , ORG and PERSON . It accordingly sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , pursuant to LAW , and barred him from public service for DATE and DATE . The court also found police officer PERSON guilty of killing ORG and PERSON and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , and barred him from public service for DATE and DATE , pursuant to LAW . The remaining eighteen police officers were acquitted of the charges against them .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG in respect of the acquitted police officers . However it quashed the first - instance court ’s judgment in respect of the convictions of PERSON and PERSON . It held that the first instance court had failed to establish the facts of the case . Holding that the assize court ’s evaluation of evidence was insufficient , ORG quashed this part of the judgment .

On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings . It held CARDINAL hearings and re - examined the case file .

On DATE the court applied the decision of ORG and rectified its former judgment . Accordingly , ORG found PERSON guilty of killing PERSON , PERSON and PERSON and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . PERSON was further barred from public service for DATE . The court acquitted him of the remaining charges against him , namely the killing of Sezgin Engin .

The court found that PERSON was guilty of killing ORG , contrary to LAW . It accordingly sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , and barred him from public service for DATE . It acquitted PERSON of the remaining charges against him , namely the killing of Zeynep Poyraz . Finally , pursuant to LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , the court decided to suspend the sentence of PERSON , considering that the accused did not have a tendency to break the law again .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first instance court .

The investigation which had been commenced in DATE concerning the killing of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON is still pending before ORG under file no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . During the investigation , the public prosecutor took oral evidence from witnesses , and examined the autopsy reports , the photographs taken during the demonstration and the video footage of the event . He further requested the list of police officers who had been on duty during the NORP incidents and ordered a ballistic examination of their guns . As the bullet which killed PERSON could not be found , no ballistic examination could be performed . According to the ORG , the authorities are still searching the perpetrators .

DATE . On DATE a criminal complaint was filed with the ORG public prosecutor ’s office against ORG , the Governor of GPE , the Director of ORG and the police officers who were involved in the incidents of DATE in the LOC district . It was submitted that , as a result of the disproportionate use of firearms by the police , QUANTITY persons , namely PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , were killed and QUANTITY others were injured . It was argued that ORG , the governor of GPE and the director of the GPE police headquarters had been negligent in failing to control the actions of the police . The relatives of the deceased persons further argued that the police officers had even followed those running away from the scene and fired at them . They contended that the demonstrators had not fired at the police and , in support of this allegation , they maintained that no police officers had been injured or killed during the PERSON incident .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office decided not to prosecute the CARDINAL police officers who had been on duty during the PERSON incident . He stated that police officers had fired warning shots in the air to disperse the demonstrators and concluded that the deceased persons had not been killed by fire opened by members of ORG . It had not been possible to establish the accuracy of the claims that a number of civilians who opened fire on the crowd were plainclothes police officers . In reaching this conclusion , the ORG public prosecutor ’s office had regard to the eye - witness accounts of a number of persons , including the relatives of the deceased persons . A number of police officers working at the LOC police headquarters had also been questioned . CARDINAL bullets which had been removed from the bodies of the deceased and the injured persons had been compared with those obtained from the weapons of the CARDINAL defendants . As a result , it was established that these CARDINAL bullets had not been fired from any of the weapons owned by the defendants . Video recordings and a number of pictures of the scene were obtained by the prosecutor ’s office but they turned out to relate to events which had taken place after the killing of the applicants’ relatives . It was concluded that it had not been possible to identify the demonstrators who had opened fire at the crowd . The prosecutor further held that the firing in the air by police officers did not constitute a criminal offence . Finally , the prosecutor noted that , as the ballistic examinations of the weapons belonging to CARDINAL other police officers had not yet been concluded , a decision as to whether to prosecute these officers would be taken at DATE .

The applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON appealed against the decision .

On DATE the appeal was dismissed by ORG .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office decided not to prosecute the remaining CARDINAL police officers for the same reasons it had relied on in its decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicants appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE not to prosecute . Their appeal was rejected .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows :

“ All acts and decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review ...

The administration shall be liable to indemnify any damage caused by its own acts and measures . ”

This provision is not subject to any restrictions even in a state of emergency or war . The latter requirement of the provision does not necessarily require proof of the existence of any fault on the part of the administration , whose liability is of an absolute , objective nature , based on the theory of “ social risk ” . Thus the administration may indemnify people who have suffered damage from acts committed by unknown or terrorist authors when the ORG may be said to have failed in its duty to maintain public order and safety , or in its duty to safeguard individual life and property .

The Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to commit unintentional homicide ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , intentional homicide ( Article CARDINAL ) and murder ( Article CARDINAL ) .

For all these offences , complaints may be lodged , pursuant to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , with the public prosecutor or local administrative authorities . The public prosecutor and the police have a duty to investigate crimes reported to them , the former deciding whether a prosecution should be initiated , pursuant to LAW . A complainant may appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings .

The relevant provisions of Law No . CARDINAL on the Duties and Powers of the Police ( ORG ve PERSON ) , enacted in DATE , read as follows :

The police may use firearms in the event of :

( a ) ORG defence , ...

( h ) if a person or a group resists the police and prevents them from carrying out their duties or if there is an attack against the police . ”

“ In cases of resistance by persons whose arrest is necessary or by groups whose dispersal is necessary or of their threatening to attack or carrying out an attack , the police may use violence to subdue these actions .

Use of violence refers to the use of bodily force , physical force and all types of weapons specified in the law and it gradually increases according to the nature and level of resistance and attack in such a way as to restore calm .

In cases of intervention by group forces , the extent of the use of force and the equipment and instruments to be used are determined by the commander of the intervening force . ”

Section CARDINAL of the Regulation on the Duties and Powers of the Police ( Polis Vazife ve ORG ) provides :

“ Pursuant to LAW of the police , police officers are entitled to use firearms . However recourse to firearms arms should be limited to cases when all other means remain ineffective . In this connection , it should be recalled that the police should not aim to kill but to capture the accused person(s ) with minimum physical injury , and should try to avoid using firearms in crowded areas . ”

According to Part A paragraph CARDINAL of Resolution CARDINAL on the Declaration on the Police adopted by ORG of ORG in DATE , “ police officers shall receive clear and precise instructions as to the manner and circumstances in which they may make use of arms ” .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ Every human being has the inherent right to life . This right shall be protected by law . No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life . ”

In this connection , ORG noted the following ( see General Comment no . DATE ( DATE ) , § CARDINAL ) :

“ The protection against arbitrary deprivation of life which is explicitly required by the third sentence of article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) is of paramount importance . ORG considers that GPE parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts , but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces . The deprivation of life by the authorities of the ORG is a matter of the utmost gravity . Therefore , the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by such authorities . ”

The United Nations Basic Principles on ORG ( “ ORG Firearms Principles ” ) were adopted on DATE by ORG on ORG and the Treatment of Offenders .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the NORP states that ORG and law enforcement agencies shall adopt and implement rules and regulations on the use of force and firearms against persons by law enforcement officials . In developing such rules and regulations , ORG and law enforcement agencies shall keep the ethical issues associated with the use of force and firearms constantly under review .

Pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL , the ORG undertake to develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms . These should include the development of non - lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations , with a view to increasingly restraining the application of the means capable of causing death or injury to persons . For the same purpose , it should also be possible for law enforcement officials to be equipped with self - defence equipment such as shields , helmets , bullet - proof vests and bullet - proof transport , in order to decrease the need to use weapons of any kind .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the Principles provides , inter alia , that law enforcement officials shall “ act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved ” . In accordance with paragraph CARDINAL , “ governments shall ensure that the arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law ” . Paragraph CARDINAL foresees that “ law enforcement officers shall not use firearms against persons except in self - defence or the defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury ... In any event , the intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life ” . Paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) states that national rules and regulations on the use of firearms should “ ensure that firearms are used only in appropriate circumstances and in a manner likely to decrease the risk of unnecessary harm ” .

In CARDINAL and DATE the following Principles are adopted for policing unlawful assemblies :

“ In the dispersal of assemblies that are unlawful but non - violent , law enforcement officials shall avoid the use of force or , where that is not practicable , shall restrict such force to the minimum extent necessary . ”

“ In the dispersal of violent assemblies , law enforcement officials may use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary . Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms in such cases , except under the conditions stipulated in LAW . ”

Furthermore , LAW , adopted by the ORG resolution on DATE , reads :

“ Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty ” .

In DATE , ORG further adopted CARDINAL basic human rights standards for law enforcement officials . The relevant standards read as follows :

“ Do not use force except when strictly necessary and to the minimum extent required under the circumstances . ”

“ Avoid using force when policing unlawful but non - violent assemblies . When dispersing violent assemblies , use force only to the minimum extent necessary . ”

“ Lethal force should not be used except when strictly unavoidable in order to protect your life and others . ”


No violation of Art. 13;No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE QUANTITY police officers came to the applicant 's country house , intending to search it . The applicant objected and the police officers left . According to the applicant they returned DATE , climbed over the fence and broke it .

On DATE the applicant , having been unsuccessful in his attempts to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers , lodged an action against the local prosecution authorities seeking compensation for damage resulting from their refusal to open a criminal case .

On DATE ORG , at final instance , dismissed the action , finding that the prosecution authorities had no cause to institute criminal proceedings as the police officers had not searched the applicant 's house .

On DATE , at TIME , QUANTITY police officers , PERSON and Mr Ne . , and officer ORG 's relative , PERSON , acting on information that the applicant owned an unregistered weapon , broke into his country house . The applicant and his DATE daughter were in the house . The officers told the applicant that a man had been killed in a nearby house and demanded that the applicant hand over his hunting rifle and cartridges .

NORP In response to the applicant 's assertion that he did not own a weapon , officer PERSON twice hit him in the head with the hilt of his gun . Threatening to use a gun , he then ordered the applicant to stand with his face to the wall , his hands against the wall and his legs spread . Having learnt that the applicant 's daughter was also in the house , officer ORG ordered her to come downstairs . When she refused , officer N. shot into the air . As the applicant 's daughter still refused to comply , officer ORG approached and hit her CARDINAL times in the head with the hilt of his gun . According to the applicant , having dragged the girl downstairs , officer ORG continued beating him and his daughter , threatening them with murder .

NORP The police officers and PERSON searched the house . Having found no weapons , officer PERSON again beat the applicant up . The applicant alleged that officer PERSON had pressed the gun against his head and had pulled the trigger . No shot was fired because the gun was not loaded . More murder threats followed .

The police officers tied the applicant 's hands behind his back and took him to another house where the beating and threats continued . The applicant was released TIME after having promised to come to a police station on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the NORP district prosecutor , describing the events of TIME . Criminal proceedings were instituted .

On DATE an investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings , finding that the applicant 's complaints were manifestly ill - founded . The investigator observed that medical experts had examined the applicant and his daughter and had diagnosed both of them with closed craniocerebral injuries and concussion . The experts also recorded compound wounds in the parietal region of the applicant 's head and CARDINAL tear - contused wounds on his daughter 's head . However , the investigator concluded that there was no evidence in support of the applicant 's allegations that the injuries had been caused by officer ORG

DATE the GPE district prosecutor quashed the decision and reopened the investigation .

On an unspecified date officer ORG was served with the bill of indictment and committed to stand trial before ORG of GPE .

The applicant and his representative attended the trial hearings . On DATE ORG found the applicant 's representative in contempt for having offended the presiding judge and excluded the representative from the courtroom .

On DATE the ORG , having established that on DATE Mr N. had broken into the applicant 's country house , had severely beaten the applicant and his daughter and had searched the house , found him guilty of unlawful breaking and entering into a dwelling and gross abuse of position , and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . ORG , without supporting its decision by any reasoning , also awarded MONEY ( RUB , MONEY ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage to be paid to the applicant and his daughter by PERSON At the same time ORG instructed the applicant to bring a separate action for compensation for damage caused to his and his daughter 's health by Mr N. 's unlawful actions .

The applicant appealed , complaining , inter alia , about the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG , noting that ORG had not committed any gross violations of the law , upheld the judgment of DATE . The applicant was present at the appeal hearing .

The judgment of DATE , as upheld on appeal on DATE , was not enforced in the part concerning compensation for damage , because Mr N. did not have any assets .

On DATE the applicant and his daughter lodged an action against ORG , the GPE regional treasury and the GPE regional and LOC district police departments , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The applicant argued that the ORG should bear responsibility for the unlawful actions of its agents , in this case police officer PERSON , who had broken into his house and beaten him and his daughter . He also contended that the compensation awarded to him by the judgment of DATE was insufficient and had not even been paid to him .

On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the action , reasoning as follows :

“ Having heard the parties and having studied the case materials , the court makes the following findings .

On DATE the ORG of the GPE Region found Mr N. guilty [ of the criminal offences ] proscribed by LAW and LAW ( a ) and ( b ) of LAW and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . [ The court ] awarded MONEY in compensation for non - pecuniary damage to [ the applicant ] ( MONEY in his favour and MONEY to be paid to [ his daughter ] ) .

It was established in the court 's judgment that on DATE Mr N. , acting against [ the applicant 's ] will , had entered his dwelling ( a country house ) , where he had fired his gun a number of times . Mr N. had twice hit [ the applicant ] in the head with the hilt of his gun , causing an abrasion to the applicant 's scalp ... Mr N. had hit [ the applicant 's daughter ] CARDINAL times in the head with the hilt of his gun , causing a closed craniocerebral injury accompanied by concussion , and CARDINAL tear - contused wounds ...

By virtue of LAW an individual has a right to appeal to a court against the actions ( inactions ) of a ORG body , a municipal authority or their officials .

According to LAW damage caused to an individual or a legal entity by the unlawful actions ( inactions ) of ORG [ and ] municipal bodies or their officials ... must be compensated . The compensation is to be paid out of the funds of the ORG of GPE , the treasury of the constituent element of GPE or the treasury of the municipal entity respectively .

Article CARDINAL does not cover the unlawful actions of all employees of a ORG or municipal body but only those of the officials defined in the annotation to LAW . Officials are persons who permanently , temporarily or on the basis of a specific authorisation perform functions of public agents or perform managerial , regulatory , administrative or economic functions in ORG and municipal bodies or ORG and municipal entities . For liability under LAW to be invoked the official must have caused the damage in the performance of his duties .

By virtue of LAW any person accused of having committed a criminal offence is considered innocent until his guilt is proven according to a federal law and established by a final court judgment .

It was established in the court hearing that after the judgment [ of DATE ] had become final , Mr N. was dismissed from [ the police service ] .

By virtue of Article PERSON of the NORP Civil Code damage caused to an individual as a result of his unlawful conviction , the unlawful institution of criminal proceedings against him , his unlawful detention on remand , the unlawful application of a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence or the unlawful imposition of an administrative sanction such as arrest or correctional works should be compensated in full , irrespective of the guilt of the officials of the [ police ] , investigating , prosecuting or judicial authorities , in a procedure established by law and out of the funds of the ORG of GPE or , if prescribed by law , the funds of the treasury of the constituent element of GPE or the municipal entity .

Compensation for damage caused to an individual or a legal entity as a result of the unlawful actions of the [ police ] , investigating or prosecution authorities which did not produce any of the consequences described in paragraph CARDINAL of [ Article CARDINAL ] should be awarded on the basis of and in line with the procedure established by Article CARDINAL of [ the NORP Civil Code ] ...

The legal relations between claimants and defendants do not fall within the ambit of Article CARDINAL .

Therefore , [ the court ] dismisses [ the claimant 's ] claims that the actions ( inactions ) of the authorities of the LOC district and GPE regional police departments and ORG of GPE were unlawful .

By virtue of LAW a court may order perpetrators to pay monetary compensation for non - pecuniary damage ( psychological and physical suffering ) to individuals who sustained such damage through actions which violated their personal non - pecuniary rights or otherwise encroached on their non - pecuniary interests , as well as in other cases envisaged by a federal law .

LAW lists life , health , human dignity , personal safety ... among those non - pecuniary interests .

No compensation should be awarded for non - pecuniary damage because , by virtue of the judgment of ORG of GPE , the applicant was awarded compensation for non - pecuniary damage to be paid by PERSON , the direct tortfeasor .

The present judgment has not established responsibility on the part of any officials in causing damage to [ the applicant ] .

In such circumstances the court considers [ the claimant 's ] claims manifestly ill - founded and dismisses them in full . ”

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment , finding that :

“ ... in view of the fact that [ the applicant ] and [ his daughter ] made use of their right and lodged a claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage by the direct tortfeasor and that their claims were allowed by the court in the course of the examination of the criminal case ; that compensation for non - pecuniary damage constitutes CARDINAL - off redress ; and that dual compensation for non - pecuniary damage caused by the same actions of the person concerned is impossible , the [ District ] court lawfully dismissed the plaintiffs ' claims for compensation for non - pecuniary damage in connection with the unlawful actions of Mr N. ”

On DATE the applicant 's car was stolen . On DATE CARDINAL individuals were arrested and charged with theft . The car was returned to the applicant . On DATE ORG , at final instance , found the individuals guilty of the unlawful removal of a car without intent to steal it , acquitted them of a charge of theft and sentenced them to DATE probation .

According to the applicant , on DATE CARDINAL police officers , PERSON and NORP , stopped him in the street and attempted to carry out a search on his person . The applicant objected and the officers took him to the local police station , where he was beaten up and placed in a temporary detention unit . He was released TIME without being given any reasons for his arrest .

The Government provided a different version of events , insisting that officers PERSON and NORP had taken the applicant to GPE district police station in GPE as he had committed an administrative offence proscribed by LAW . In the station the officer on duty drew up report no . DATE recording the details of the administrative offence . The report , which was provided to ORG , consisted of a CARDINAL - page printed template in which the date , the officer 's and applicant 's names , the applicant 's personal data and a description of the administrative offence had been filled in by hand . The relevant part reads as follows ( the pre - printed part in NORP script and the part written by hand in italics ) :

“ on DATE , at TIME , at a public transport stop ... [ the applicant ] was in an intoxicated state , walked staggering from CARDINAL side to another and looked untidy , thereby committing an administrative offence proscribed by LAW , namely ' appearance in a public place in an intoxicated state ' .

Witnesses , victims _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[ The applicant ] was explained to him his rights and duties laid down in LAW .

PERPETRATOR 'S EXPLANATIONS .

[ I ] drank QUANTITY of vodka .

I , [ the applicant ] , have been informed that my case will be examined by the GPE district police department .

Decision taken in the case : in compliance with LAW a warning was issued . ”

After his release from the police station on DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor in the trauma unit of the local hospital and diagnosed with an injury to the left side of his chest . In the absence of visible traces of an injury , the diagnosis was made by means of palpation of the chest , with the applicant complaining of pain . The doctor called the GPE district police department and reported the applicant 's injury , allegedly sustained at the hands of the police officers . The officer on duty recorded the conversation in an information log and assigned it case number DATE .

On DATE officer NORP filed a CARDINAL - sentence report indicating that on DATE at TIME , he and officer PERSON had arrested the applicant because he had been drunk , had been walking unsteadily and looked untidy .

On DATE a duty police officer questioned the applicant about the circumstances in which he had sustained his injury . The applicant explained that on the morning of the same day he had been approached by CARDINAL police officers who had asked him to present identification documents . In response to the applicant 's statement that he had no papers , a police officer tried to search him . The applicant objected and was taken to the local police station , where he was searched . After the search one of the officers took him to a cell , where he hit the applicant several times in the chest , accompanying the blows with instructions to learn to communicate with the police properly .

On DATE officer PERSON addressed a written explanation to a higher - ranking officer . The explanation read as follows :

“ In response to the questions asked [ I ] can explain that on DATE , at TIME , when I , a police officer , was on patrol with officer NORP , we noticed a suspicious man who was dressed untidily ( his coat was unbuttoned ) . Having approached the man , we introduced ourselves and asked him to present identification documents , in response to which [ the applicant ] , ... used offensive language and refused to show [ the documents ] , saying that he did not have time . Subsequently we asked [ the applicant ] to accompany us to the police station ... When we arrived at the station , the man was asked to put sharp objects on a shelf . [ The applicant ] took out a rusty clinch nail and said that he did not have anything else except for a plastic bag with documents which he needed to take to ORG . We suggested that he go to a cell for administrative arrestees . He entered the cell . Subsequently , a record of administrative arrest was drawn up under LAW ... After that [ the applicant ] was released . ”

On DATE the applicant requested the GPE district prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers , alleging that he had been unlawfully taken to the police station and that he had been searched and beaten up there . The applicant also claimed that no reports had been drawn up concerning his arrest .

On DATE the GPE district prosecutor re - directed the applicant 's complaint to the GPE district police department , requesting an internal inquiry .

On DATE the head of the police department issued a report , finding as follows :

“ On DATE , at TIME , patrol officers [ PERSON and NORP ] and police trainee , PERSON , started their shift from [ the local police station ] . At TIME near a house .... officers PERSON and NORP stopped [ the applicant ] , who was in the state of alcohol intoxication , looked untidy , and was walking unsteadily , holding his right hand to his bosom , arousing the officers ' suspicion . The police officers brought [ the applicant ] to the police station as he did not have any identification documents on him . Record [ of the arrest ] no . DATE was entered in the arrests registration log in the station . On being signed in [ the applicant ] was searched in compliance with the requirements of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .

Police officer PERSON drew up administrative offence record no . DATE in relation to [ the applicant 's ] offence proscribed by LAW . On DATE a decision was issued on the basis of the case file materials : [ the applicant was ] warned .

The arrests registration log shows that [ the applicant ] was released at TIME

In his complaint [ the applicant ] contended that the police officers had arrested him without any valid reasons ; furthermore , the police officers had unlawfully performed a body search on him . After he was brought to the police station he had been beaten up by a police officer .

Police officers PERSON and NORP explained in their statements that on DATE they had arrested [ the applicant ] ; an administrative offence record under LAW had been drawn up concerning him ; no physical force or special measures had been used against [ the applicant ] .

The official internal inquiry did not manage to resolve the discrepancies between the police officers ' and [ the applicant 's ] statements . ”

The materials from the police internal inquiry were sent to the office of the GPE district prosecutor .

On DATE the prosecutor ordered a graphological analysis of the signature on the report of DATE because the applicant claimed that he had not signed any document DATE . On DATE the GPE town expert bureau submitted an opinion , noting that the data provided insufficient basis for a firm finding to the effect that the applicant had signed the report . However , the experts did not exclude the possibility that the signatures belonged to the applicant .

On DATE an assistant of the GPE district prosecutor , relying on the results of the internal police inquiry , the graphological expert report and on statements by the applicant , police officers PERSON and NORP and the doctor who had examined the applicant on DATE , refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers , finding no criminal conduct in their actions . In particular , the assistant prosecutor held as follows :

“ Thus , the investigation did not establish the elements of a criminal offence ... in the actions of police officers PERSON and NORP [ The applicant 's ] arrest and his signing - in at [ the local police station ] were performed in compliance with the administrative legal norms ; an administrative offence report under LAW was issued in respect of [ the applicant ] . On DATE it was decided to take administrative action against [ the applicant ] in the form of a warning . For conduct to form the corpus delicti of an offence proscribed by LAW of LAW Criminal Code an official must have committed acts which no one in any circumstances may commit ( injuring an individual without any reason ) . However , it was impossible to reliably establish that [ the applicant ] had sustained an injury because his diagnosis was called into question and was not monitored in time . No forensic medical expert examination was performed in respect of those injuries . ”

The applicant appealed to ORG , complaining , inter alia , that his arrest on DATE and his charging with an administrative offence had been unlawful . He insisted that he had only learned about the administrative charges from the assistant prosecutor 's decision .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of DATE and authorised the prosecution authorities to perform an additional investigation . In particular , it stressed that the investigating authorities should question the police trainee , PERSON , about the circumstances surrounding the applicant 's arrest and the doctor from the trauma unit about the applicant 's alleged state of alcohol intoxication . ORG also observed that the applicant should lodge a separate complaint concerning the administrative arrest .

No appeal was lodged against the decision of DATE and it became final . The applicant did not complain of the alleged unlawfulness of his administrative arrest in separate proceedings .

On DATE a GPE deputy district prosecutor closed the investigation , finding no prima facie case to be answered . The decision incorporated the text of the decision issued on DATE together with additional paragraphs which read as follows :

“ In the course of the additional investigation the acting head of the trauma unit of GPE District , PERSON , was questioned ; [ he ] explained that when a person is admitted to the trauma unit in a state of intoxication , a record in “ a criminal registry ” log is made stating that the person is in a state of alcohol intoxication . In [ the applicant 's ] case no such record was made ; that is why he can not describe the state in which the applicant had been .

A police officer from the patrol division of the GPE district police department , PERSON , when questioned in the course of the additional investigation , explained that in DATE she had been a trainee . On DATE she was in a patrol unit ... together with police officers PERSON and NORP Between TIME and TIME , [ the applicant ] was brought in ; [ he ] behaved inappropriately and was dressed untidily . The man was placed in a cell for administrative arrestees and an administrative offence record under LAW was drawn up in respect of his conduct . [ The applicant ] signed the record . ”

In response to the applicant 's complaints about the prosecution authorities ' failure to investigate his ill - treatment complaints thoroughly , on DATE ORG , at final instance , upheld the decision of DATE , finding that the deputy prosecutor had thoroughly assessed the evidence and had drawn the correct conclusions .

On DATE the GPE first deputy regional prosecutor quashed the decision of DATE , finding that the investigation was incomplete and the decision premature . He ordered a new round of investigations , setting out a list of steps to be taken , including the identification of individuals who might have seen the applicant in the police station . The first deputy also noted a number of inconsistencies in the police officers ' statements regarding , among other aspects , the time of the arrest , the applicant 's state of intoxication and the absence of identification documents .

On DATE a deputy prosecutor of GPE dismissed the applicant 's ill - treatment complaint as manifestly ill - founded . The decision repeated the wording of the previous CARDINAL decisions refusing the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers . In addition , a deputy prosecutor cited statements given by police officers PERSON , NORP and PERSON during the additional investigation . Owing to the remoteness of the events the QUANTITY police officers were unable to recall the exact time when they had arrested the applicant . The deputy prosecutor also pointed out that the samples of the police officers ' handwriting did not allow a forensic expert to make a conclusive finding as to the authorship of the signatures on the record of the applicant 's arrest . The final paragraph of the decision read as follows :

“ Thus , the investigation did not establish any criminal conduct ... [ in the police officers ' NORP , PERSON , and I. ] actions . [ The applicant 's ] arrest and his signing - in at the [ local police station ] were performed in accordance with the administrative law in force at the material time ; an administrative offence record was drawn up in respect of [ the applicant ] ; he appealed against it in accordance with the procedure established by law . On DATE [ the applicant ] was found guilty of [ an administrative offence ] and a warning was issued . For conduct to form the corpus delicti of an offence under LAW an official must have committed acts which no one in any circumstances may commit . By virtue of sections CARDINAL [ and ] CARDINAL of LAW , police officers must put an end to and prevent the commission of administrative offences , [ must ] check individuals ' identification documents if there are grounds to suspect them of having committed an administrative offence , [ must ] perform searches on individuals and their personal belongings ; and [ must ] perform administrative arrests and draw up records of administrative actions . According to LAW , patrol units must ensure public safety and preserve public order on their rounds , at their duty points and in the adjacent areas ; [ they ] must prevent and put an end to administrative offences ... PERSON and Mr NORP gave statements during the investigation explaining that they had checked [ the applicant 's ] documents because [ the applicant ] was suspected of having committed an administrative offence . ”

On DATE ORG , acting at final instance , dismissed the applicant 's complaint against the decision of DATE , concluding that the deputy prosecutor 's findings were correct .

On DATE the applicant complained before the courts that officials from the GPE regional prosecutor 's office had not examined his complaints properly and had also intercepted his complaints to ORG . On DATE ORG disallowed the claim because the applicant had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for lodging such a complaint .

The applicant brought an action before ORG against ORG , ORG , officials of the GPE regional and GPE district prosecutors ' offices and the GPE district police department . He sought compensation for damage caused by the police officers on DATE on account of his arrest , ill - treatment and search and the forgery of administrative records concerning him .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's action , relying on the deputy prosecutor 's decision of DATE and citing ORG CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL of the Russian Civil Code . The reasoning of ORG read as follows :

“ Taking into account the circumstances established and having regard to the legal norms cited , the court does not see any ground to allow the action as it is unsubstantiated ; [ the applicant ] did not provide the court with any evidence showing that he had sustained damage as a result of unlawful actions on the part of the police officers and prosecution authorities . At the same time , the lawfulness of the police officers ' and prosecution authorities ' actions ... was thoroughly looked into on a number of occasions and was confirmed by the decision of DATE of the GPE ORG of GPE , as upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .

[ The applicant 's ] allegations that he sustained non - pecuniary damage as a result of unlawful actions on the part of the police officers and prosecution authorities are manifestly ill - founded having regard to the grounds which [ the court took into account ] in dismissing the action . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( f ) of LAW of the Russian Federation makes acts of torture punishable by DATE imprisonment . Under LAW ( a ) and ( c ) abuse of an official position associated with the use of violence or entailing serious consequences carries a punishment of DATE imprisonment .

The Code of Criminal Procedure of GPE ( in force since DATE , “ the CCrP ” ) provides that a criminal investigation may be initiated by an investigator or a prosecutor following a complaint by an individual or on the investigative authorities ' own initiative , where there are reasons to believe that a crime has been committed ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . A prosecutor is responsible for overall supervision of the investigation ( Article CARDINAL ) . He can order specific investigative actions , transfer the case from CARDINAL investigator to another or order an additional investigation . If there are no grounds to initiate a criminal investigation , the prosecutor or investigator issues a reasoned decision to that effect , which has to be notified to the interested party . The decision is amenable to appeal to a higher - ranking prosecutor or to a court of general jurisdiction under a procedure established by LAW Article CARDINAL ) . Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides for judicial review of decisions by investigators and prosecutors that might infringe the constitutional rights of the participants in proceedings or prevent access to a court .

The relevant provisions of LAW of GPE ( of DATE ) read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . An individual 's life and health , dignity , personal integrity , honour and goodwill , professional reputation , the inviolability of his or her private life , personal and family secrets , the right to liberty of movement and to choose his or her place of temporary and permanent residence , the right to a name , copyright , other personal non - property rights and other incorporeal assets which a person possesses by virtue of birth or by operation of law shall be inalienable and shall not be transferable by any means ... ”

“ If certain actions impairing an individual 's personal non - property rights or encroaching on other incorporeal assets have caused him or her non - pecuniary damage ( physical or mental suffering ) ... the court may require the perpetrator to pay pecuniary compensation for that damage ... ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of GPE provides that damage caused to the person or property of a citizen must be compensated for in full by the tortfeasor . Under LAW , a ORG agency or a ORG official whose unlawful actions or failure to act cause damage to an individual will incur liability . Such damage is to be compensated for at the expense of the federal or regional treasury . Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Civil Code provide for compensation for non - pecuniary damage . Article CARDINAL states , in particular , that compensation must be awarded for non - pecuniary damage irrespective of any award for pecuniary damage .