Communicated on 16 March 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 59557/08 Aynur ÅžENGÃœL against Turkey lodged on 21 November 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Aynur Şengül , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and as they appear from the documents submitted by her, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a lawyer and is a member of the Istanbul Bar Association.

On 1 May 2007 police officers took a number of security measures in Istanbul because of May the First International Labour Day celebrations and there was therefore a large police presence on the streets.

At around 9.30 a.m. the applicant was walking to her office in Istanbul when five to six persons, who identified themselves as police officers, stopped her. She explained to them that she was a lawyer and was on her way to her office. Nevertheless, a large number of police officers from the rapid response force circled her, put her in an armoured vehicle and took her to the police station in the BeÅŸiktaÅŸ neighbourhood of Istanbul.

On her arrival at the station she asked the police officers there to explain to her the reasons why she had been taken there, but was told by the police chief C.Ş. to “get out of his office, shut up and wait”. When she tried to explain that she was a lawyer and wanted to know the reasons for her detention, C.Ş. shouted at her and told her that she was “not a lawyer but a tramp”, before making an attempt to hit her. Other police officers then stopped C.Ş., took the applicant out of his office and asked her to wait in the corridor.

While waiting in the corridor the applicant telephoned her colleagues and also informed the Istanbul Bar Association about her arrest and detention. She was subsequently informed that the president of the Bar Association had telephoned the Istanbul chief prosecutor and had been told that she would be “released within half an hour”.

A number of lawyers arrived at the station to assist the applicant and finally she was brought before a prosecutor, who ordered her release at 4.30 p.m. the same day.

According to the statement taken by the prosecutor from the applicant in her capacity as a “suspect”, the applicant told the prosecutor that the police officers had told her that they had been keeping her at the station “as a guest”. When she had explained to the police officers that there was no such ground in Turkish law for detaining a person, the police chief C.Ş. had got agitated and tried to attack her. She told the prosecutor that she wanted to introduce a formal complaint against the police chief C.Ş.

On 14 May 2007 a prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against the applicant because he considered that there was no evidence to show that she had “organised or participated in an unlawful demonstration or that she had made attempts to prevent police officers from carrying out their duties”.

The applicant made a formal complaint against the police chief C.Åž. on 25 May 2007 and alleged that he had committed the offences of false imprisonment, making insults and threats and physical assault.

On 22 February 2008 the prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against the police chief C.Ş. because he considered that there was insufficient evidence to show that the police chief C.Ş. had committed the offences of “abuse of duties, insult or attempted physical assault”. No mention was made in the prosecutor ’ s decision about the applicant ’ s allegation of false imprisonment.

The applicant lodged an objection against the prosecutor ’ s decision and repeated her allegations. She added that the police chief had continued to detain her in the station despite a number of instructions given to him by the Istanbul chief prosecutor to release her.

The applicant ’ s objection was rejected by the Beyoğlu Assize Court on 22 April 2008. The decision of the Assize Court was communicated to the applicant on 9 June 2008.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1-3 of the Convention that she was arrested and detained unlawfully, that she was not informed about the reasons for her arrest and that she was not released or brought before an officer authorised by law until the intervention of her colleagues from the Bar Association.

Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that her complaints were not examined in an adequate manner.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within any of the sub-paragraphs of that provision?

2. Was the applicant informed promptly of the reasons for her arrest, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to supplement their answers to the above questions by submitting a copy of the following documents:

a) the applicant ’ s arrest report;

b) the relevant pages of the custody ledgers showing the times of the applicant ’ s entry into and discharge from the police station;

c) documentary evidence showing that the applicant was informed about the reasons for her arrest;

d) statements taken from the applicant in police custody; and

e) statements taken from the police officers by the prosecutor in relation to the applicant ’ s allegations of false imprisonment.