Fundamentos destacados: 124. A este respecto, la Corte observa que, si bien los manifestantes comenzaron a reunirse frente a la oficina del partido BDP alrededor de las 15:00 horas de ese día, el tráfico en la carretera en cuestión no se detuvo hasta alrededor de las 16:30 horas, cuando los manifestantes se dirigían hacia la carretera (véanse los párrafos 13 y 13 y 39 supra). Además, de los informes policiales se desprende que los demandantes se incorporaron a la primera línea de manifestantes alrededor de las 16:40 horas (véase el párrafo 16 supra). Además, las imágenes de vídeo muestran que la intervención policial comenzó menos de dos minutos después de que los demandantes se incorporarán a las líneas del frente (véase el apartado 39 supra). Por lo tanto, parece que el flujo de tráfico se vio afectado solo durante un período de menos de veinte minutos antes de la intervención de la policía (compárese y contraste con Kudrevičius y otros, antes citado, § 169, donde la interrupción en tres carreteras principales duró más de cuarenta y ocho horas; Makarashvili y otros c. Georgia, nos. 23158/20 y otros 2, § 102, de 1 de septiembre de 2022, en los que la interrupción haya durado al menos un día y medio; Barraco c. Francia, No. 31684/05, § 47, de 5 de marzo de 2009, donde la interrupción duró cinco horas; y Éva Molnár, antes citada, § 42, donde la interrupción duró varias horas).
[…]
128. El Tribunal de Justicia admite que los organizadores de la manifestación controvertida incumplieron la normativa vigente en el momento de los hechos (véase la sentencia Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası y otros, antes citada, apartado 108). Sin embargo, teniendo en cuenta la impaciencia de las autoridades para tratar de dispersar la marcha y la forma en que se utilizó la fuerza, la Corte considera que la intervención de la policía fue desproporcionada e innecesaria en una sociedad democrática.
[Traducción de LP]
124. In this regard, the Court observes that although the demonstrators began gathering in front of the BDP party office at about 3 p.m. that day, traffic on the road in question was not stopped until about 4.30 p.m., when the demonstrators were heading towards the road (see paragraphs 13 and 39 above). Furthermore, it appears from the police reports that the applicants joined the front line of demonstrators at about 4.40 p.m. (see paragraph 16 above). Moreover, the video footage shows that the police intervention began less than two minutes after the applicants joined the front lines (see paragraph 39 above). Therefore, it appears that the flow of traffic was affected only for a period of less than twenty minutes before the intervention of the police (compare and contrast Kudrevičius and Others, cited above, § 169, where the disruption on three major highways lasted for more than forty eight hours; Makarashvili and Others v. Georgia, nos. 23158/20 and 2 others, § 102, 1 September 2022, where the disruption lasted for at least a day and a half; Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, § 47, 5 March 2009, where the disruption lasted for five hours; and Éva Molnár, cited above, § 42, where the disruption lasted for several hours).
[…]
128. The Court accepts that the organisers of the demonstration at issue failed to comply with the regulations in force at the material time (see Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası and Others, cited above, § 108). However, taking into account the authorities’ impatience in seeking to disperse the march and the manner in which the force was used, the Court considers that the intervention of the police was disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society.
[Idioma original]
CASE OF GEYLANİ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Application no. 10443/12)
JUDGMENT
Art 3 (procedural and substantive) • Art 11 • Degrading treatment • Freedom of assembly • Use of water cannon by the police to disperse a peaceful demonstration resulting in injury to the second applicant from being hit by pressurised water • Case-law on the use of tear-gas grenades and rubber bullets applicable mutatis mutandis, given dangerous nature of water cannons: police operations – including use of water cannons – to be authorised and sufficiently delimited by domestic law within the framework of a system of adequate and effective safeguards against arbitrariness, abuse of force and avoidable accidents • Domestic legal framework lacking specific provisions on the use of water cannons during demonstrations as well as any instructions for their deployment • Not shown that the security forces’ intervention was properly regulated and organised in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible any risk of bodily harm to the demonstrators • Use of force neither strictly necessary by second applicant’s own conduct nor indispensable for the purpose of quelling a mass disorder • Ineffective investigation • Police intervention disproportionate and “not necessary in a democratic society”
STRASBOURG
12 September 2023
FINAL
12/12/2023
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.
It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Geylani and Others v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Pauliine Koskelo,
Saadet Yüksel,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 10443/12) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Turkish nationals, Mr Hamit Geylani, Ms Sevahir Bayındır (“the second applicant”) and Mr Hasip Kaplan (collectively “the applicants”), on 27 January 2012; the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the dispersal by the police of the demonstration in which the applicants participated, the alleged ill-treatment of the second applicant in the course of the dispersal and the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the matter, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 11 July 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns the dispersal by the police of a demonstration organised by a political party and the injuries sustained by the second applicant during the dispersal. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. The second applicant alleges a further violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
THE FACTS
2. The applicants’ details are set out in the appended table. They were represented initially by Mr E. Cinmen, a lawyer practising in Muğla, and subsequently also by Mr R. Demir and Ms Y. Kılıç, lawyers practising in Istanbul.
3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye.
[Continúa…]
