I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in ADIGÜZEL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY.

Information

• Judgment date: 2018-02-13
• Communication date: 2015-05-22
• Application number(s): 65126/09
• Country:   TUR
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 5, 5-1-c, 5-2, 11
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.692184
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicants, whose names appear in the appendix, are Turkish nationals who live in Kars.
They are represented by Mr O. Gündoğdu, a lawyer practising in Kars.
All of the applicants, except for Mr Abdulkadir Dağ, Mr Hüseyin Boçnak, Mr Hikmet Kurun, Mr Nesimi Karaağaç and Mr Mikail Ağaç, are members of Tes-İş, Tüm-Bel-Sen, Yapı-Yol-Sen and Eğitim-Sen, trade unions formed by public employees.
All of the said trade unions are members of the Confederation of Public Employees’ Trade Unions (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – hereinafter referred to as “KESK”).
On 14 November 2009 at around 12.30 p.m. all of the applicants, apart from the aforementioned five, gathered in Atatürk Street in Kars, along with several other persons, within the context of a nationwide campaign initiated by KESK to protest against the arrest of thirty five union members.
The participants intended to read out a press declaration.
Shortly after, police officers arrived in the area and gave a verbal warning to disperse the group.
After approximately seven minutes, the police officers intervened and started taking the participants into custody along with the five aforementioned applicants who were coincidentally passing by the area at the time.
According to the information in the case-file, the applicants’ arrests were conducted between 12.30 p.m. and 3 p.m. On the same day at around 3 p.m. the applicants were taken to the police station to give their statements.
Subsequently, some of the applicants were placed in custody in the custody cells of the Kars Central Police Station and the rest were placed in custody at the Kars Security Directorate (Asayiş Şube Müdürlüğü).
As it transpires from the existing documents in the case-file, on 15 November 2009 the applicants were heard by the Kars public prosecutor, who extended the applicants’ custody for an unknown duration.
On the same day the applicants’ objected to the decision of the public prosecutor.
The Kars Magistrates’ Court dismissed their objection on the ground that the extension of the applicants’ custody period was compatible with domestic legislation.
Again on the same day the applicants’ were brought before the investigating judge, who questioned them between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. and subsequently decided on their release.
According to the applicants’ submissions, they were released at around 7 p.m. on 15 November 2009.
On 17 November 2009 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicants for violating the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act (Law no.
2911), in particular disrupting individuals’ movement on the pavement.
On 20 January 2011 the Kars Criminal Court, on the basis of the video footage of the incident and the scene of incident report, acquitted the applicants of the charges against them.
In its judgment, the court referred to Article 11 of the Convention as well as the relevant provisions of the Turkish Constitution and stated that everyone had the right to hold unarmed and peaceful meetings and demonstration marches without prior permission.
According to the court, the meeting fell within the scope of freedom of expression as the video footage revealed that the participants’ aim was peaceful, it did not upset public order and lasted for merely seven minutes.
The court further emphasized that the police had intervened without giving the applicants enough time to disperse after the initial warning.
The judgment became final without being appealed.
COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about the allegedly poor conditions at the Kars Central Police Station and the Kars Security Directorate, in particular, overcrowding and inadequate sleeping arrangements.
The applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about their arrest and detention, alleging that it was arbitrary and was not based on a reasonable suspicion of them having committed an offence.
They further contend, under Article 5 § 2, that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest.
Finally, the applicants allege a breach of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, stating that the interference by the police in the meeting constituted a violation of their right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.