Communicated on 17 February 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no 42563/08 Turgut Ä°LHAN against Turkey lodged on 28 August 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant , Mr Turgut Ä°lhan , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1958 and live s in Ä°stanbul . He is repres ented before the Court by Ms H. Ä°lhan , a lawyer practising in Ä°stanbul.

A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

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

On 18 October 2007 a criminal complaint was lodged against the applicant for car sales fraud on the ground that the applicant had failed to hand over the vehicle after receiving full payment from the complainant , Mr H.T .

At around 11.30 p.m. on 18 October 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud . According to the applicant ’ s submissions, he was severely beaten by the police officers who conducted the arrest.

The applicant was initially taken to the Pendik Hospital , where he was examined by a doctor at 12.30 a.m. on 19 October 2007. In her report, the doctor stated that the applicant had an ecchymosis on his right cheek, an incision of 0 ,5 cm on his chin and another ecchymosis and hyperemia on his right shoulder extending to his scapula.

Subsequently, at around 3 a.m. the applicant was taken to the Pendik Police Station to be interrogated; there, according to his submissions, he was subjected to ill-treatment . In his statement to the police the applicant admitted having received the full payment for the car from the complainant.

On the same day at an undetermined time he was once again examined by a doctor . The report drawn up following that examination indicated that the applicant had no new lesions.

On an unspecified date, the applicant was released from police custody.

On 25 October 2007 the applicant gave his statement s before the public prosecutor concerning the charges of fraud laid against him . In his statements the applicant denied his police statements and maintained that the written statements had been forged by the police.

On the same day the applicant was brought before the investigating judge, who remanded him in detention .

Subsequently, the applicant underwent a medical examination at the Pendik Hospital . The doctor who carried out the examination referred to the initial report dated 19 October 2007 and stated that no new lesions had appeared.

On 26 October 2007 the applicant objected to the decision ordering his detention on remand. On the same day his objection was dismissed by the Pendik Magistrates ’ Court.

On 9 January 2001 the Pendik public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Pendik Criminal Court accusing the applicant and another suspect, who was the applicant ’ s cohabitee, of fraud.

On 30 October 2007 criminal proceedings commenced before the Pendik Criminal Court .

On 20 November 2007, at the first hearing, the court decided to release the applicant pending trial , having regard to the nature and classification of the offence.

At the hearing of 12 March 2008 , the court heard the witness Mr F.D. , who testified that on 14 October 2007 he had seen the applicant taking two bundles of banknotes of 50 and 100 Turkish Liras ( TRY ) from the complainant. It appears from the hearing record that the applicant failed to attend the hearing , whereas his co-accused was present.

On 30 April 2008 the Pendik Criminal Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two years ’ imprisonment and a fine of TRY 20,000.

On 17 December 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first ‑ instance court.

On 20 December 2010 the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant ’ s objection to the final decision of 17 December 2009 .

On 6 April 2010 the applicant ’ s request for the reopening of the proceedings was also dismissed by the Pendik Criminal Court.

B. Investigation instigated into the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an official complaint with the Pendik public prosecutor, accusing three police officers of misconduct in office and of ill-treatment during his arrest and his detention in police custody.

On 27 February 2008 the public prosecutor rendered a decision of non ‑ prosecution on the ground that the use of force by the police officers was proportionate to the aim of effecting an arrest . The public prosecutor held that the injuries as recorded in the medical report drawn up at 12.30 a.m. on 19 October 2007 had been caused when the applicant had fallen while he was trying to escape and during the scuffle he had had with the accused police officers who had tried to apprehend him .

On 18 June 2008 the Kadıköy Assize Court dismissed the applicant ’ s objections against this decision.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 3 the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment at the time of his arrest and during his detention in police custody. He further alleges that the authorities then failed to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

In this connection, was the applicant medically examined after his detention at the police station? In the affirmative, the Government are invited to clarify whether the second medical report drawn up on 19 October 2007 pertains to that examination.

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

In this connection, the Government are requested to submit a copy of the investigation file and in particular reports drawn up by the police officers after the incident (such as arrest reports), describing the circumstances which necessitated the use of force in order to arrest the applicant, as well as the exact details of the use of force. They are also requested to submit a copy of the complete investigation file concerning the applicant ’s allegations of ill ‑ treatment, including any statements taken from the accused police officers and the applicant by the public prosecutor before rendering his decision of 27 February 2008.

The Government are finally invited to submit any documents or evidence showing the dates between which the applicant remained in police custody.