SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 60449/08 Mehmet ÖZER against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 15 April 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Nebojša Vučinić , President, Paul Lemmens , Robert Spano , judges, and Abel Campos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 November 2008 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Mehmet Özer , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in İzmir. He was represented be fore the Court by Mr H. Özveren , a lawyer practising in İzmir.

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

3. On 31 December 2007 as the applicant was having dinner with his friends, he received a phone call from his wife informing him that his children were ill. He therefore took his car, and started driving home. On the way, he was stopped by a traffic patrol and was asked to undergo a br eathalyser test. The test indicated 0.64 mg/l of alcohol in his breath. The police officers accordingly issued a traffic fine and the applicant signed it. An examination of the applicant ’ s criminal record revealed that the applicant had already been caught driving whilst under the influence of alcohol in 2003 and accordingly he was banned from driv ing for two years pursuant to Article 48/5 of the Traffic Code (Law no. 2918).

4. On 7 January 2008 the applicant applied to the Çine Magistrates ’ Court and contested the fine imposed on him. He stated that he had not consumed any alcohol on the night of the incident and that he had been forced by the officers to sign the fine. He also stated that although he had requested to be taken to a hospital for a blood test , t he police officers had refused to do so.

5. During the proceedings, the Çine Magistrates ’ Court heard evidence from the applicant, the police officer who had issued the fine, and from the witness es for the applicant. The police officer stated that the applicant had not asked for a blood test, that he had just signed the fine and left quickly stating that he had to take his children to the hospital. The applicant ’ s friends were also heard and testified that the applicant had called them after he was stopped by the police. They went to help the applicant and drove him home. In their statement, the applicant ’ s friends stated that the applicant had not consumed alcohol that night. The court further requested an expert report from the Forensic Medicine Institute relating to the reliability of the applicant ’ s breathalyser test result . In a report , dated 14 April 2008, the Forensic Medicine Institute indicated that many factors could affect the result of a breathalyser test and that it was possible for the results of a blood test and a breathalyser test to differ.

6. On 25 April 2008 the Magistrate ’ s Court rejected the applicant ’ s case . In its decision, the court established that the applicant had been driving whilst under the influence of alcohol and that the fine imposed had been in accordance with the domestic law. In rendering its decision, the court further took into account the fact that the applicant had waited seven days before challenging the result of the breathalyser test. The applicant ’ s lawyer was notified of this decision, which was final, on 6 June 2008.

COMPLAINTS

7. The applicant maintained under Article 6 of the Convention that the traffic fine which had been issued against him was unlawful , as the police officers had not take n him to a hospital for a blood test . He furthermore complained under Article 8 claiming that the ban imposed on him from driving for two years was an unjustified interference to his private life .

THE LAW

A . Concerning Article 6 of the Convention

8. The applicant complained under Article 6 that due to the failure of the police officers to take him to a hospital for a blood test, the fairness of the criminal proceedings were impaired. He furthermore maintained that the domestic court did not take into account the expert report which was in his favour .

9. The Court reiterates that it is not its task to act as a court of appeal or, as is sometimes said, as a court of fourth instance, for the decisions of domestic courts. According to the case-law, the latter are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, among many others, Vidal v. Belgium , 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B; and Edwards v. the United Kingdom , 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B). In the instant case, it notes that there is nothing in the case file which might lead to the conclusion that the domestic court acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner in assessing the evidence, establishing the facts or interpreting the domestic law. The Court notes from the documents in the case file that the police officer who had issued the fine testified before the court and stated that the applicant had not asked for a blood test. During the proceedings, the domestic court heard evidence from the witnesses for the applicant and also requested a report from the Forensic Medicine Institute to establish whether a breathalyser test was reliable. After examining the case file as a whole, the domestic court did not find in favour of the applicant. T he applicant was represented by a lawyer and was able to state his case and challenge the evidence which he considered false.

10. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

B. Concerning Article 8 of the Convention

11 . The applicant alleges under Article 8 of the Convention the ban imposed on him from driving for two years was an unjustified interference to his private life.

12. The Court observes that the applicant ’ s complaint under th is head stem s from his conviction and sentence. The alleged interference with the right relied on is , accordingly, the consequence of the application of domestic law provisions governing the sentence. Such interference was proportionate and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of public safety and for the prevention of disorder and crime. As stated above, t he Court sees no arbitrariness in the proceedings and the applicant ’ s ban from driving for two years was in line with the domestic law .

13. In view of the above, the Court considers that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously .

Declares the application inadmissible.

Abel Campos NebojÅ¡a Vučinić              Deputy Registrar President