Arbitrary detention of an eight year old child in a police station for a whole day. Violation of the right to freedom and security

JUDGMENT

Tarak and Depe v. Turkey 09.04.2019 (no. 70472/12)

see here

SUMMARY

The case concerned the detention of an eight-year-old child, Birtan Sinan Depe. He was taken to a
police station following a search carried out at the home of neighbour to whom his mother had
entrusted him. He was detained alone in the station for at least one day.

The Court found, in particular, that Birtan Sinan Depe’s position had been characterised by his very
young age and the fact that he had been unaccompanied after his arrival at the police station. He
had been left to his own devices in the police premises and had been in a vulnerable situation.
For that reason the Court held that the detention had not had any legitimate purpose under Article 5
§ 1 of the Convention and that he had been deprived of his liberty in an arbitrary manner.

PROVISION 

Article 5

PRINCIPAL FACTS 

The applicants, Yasemin Tarak and her son Birtan Sinan Depe, are Turkish nationals who were born
in 1967 and 1993 respectively. They live in Istanbul (Turkey).

In October 2001 the police carried out a search at the home of C.Ö. – a neighbour to whom Ms Tarak
had entrusted her son in her absence – as part of an investigation into a burglary that had occurred
on the same day. According to Ms Tarak, the police officers took her son, then aged eight, to a police
station. Ms Tarak then looked for her son in two other police stations, but without success.

Two days later Ms Tarak was arrested on suspicion of involvement in the burglary and escorted to
the Beyoğlu police station, where she found her son asleep on a desk. The child remained with her
until she was brought before the prosecutor later the same day.

A few days later Ms Tarak complained to the prosecutor’s office. She alleged that her son had been
taken into police custody, where he had been struck and threatened by police officers who asked
him to reveal his mother’s whereabouts. She also requested a medical examination for her son,
indicating that the detention had had a harmful effect on the child’s psychological health.
In November 2004 criminal proceedings were brought against several police officers for acting in
excess of their powers. In December 2009 the court decided to discontinue the proceedings on the
grounds that prosecution was time-barred. The Court of Cassation upheld that decision.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT

Article 5 (right to liberty and security)

The Court noted, firstly, that the events had occurred in the period from the night of 26-27 October
until 28 October 2001; that C.Ö. had been released after providing a statement and had not been
obliged to spend the night in the police station; that Birtan Sinan Depe had been detained in a room
in the police station; and that the applicants’ lawyer in the domestic proceedings had also given
evidence concerning the child’s presence at the police station.

Secondly, there was nothing in the case file to suggest that the child had left the police station
before 28 October 2001. In addition, the Government had not submitted any document or witness
statement indicating, for example, that Birtan Sinan Depe had been transferred within a reasonable
time after arrival at the police station to a children’s home or similar structure.

Without dwelling on whether or not this had represented formal police custody, the Court
concluded that the child, aged eight at the time, had been taken to the police station by police
officers and detained there alone, at least from 27 to 28 October 2001, when his mother had
arrived.

His position was characterised by his very young age and the fact that he had been unaccompanied
after his arrival at the police station. He had thus been left to himself in the police premises and had
been in a vulnerable situation. In those circumstances, the Court considered that it was not
necessary to assess whether he had been kept in closed and guarded premises from which any
unauthorised exit was prohibited, since he could not have been expected to leave the police station
alone. This detention had not had any legitimate purpose under Article 5 § 1 and had therefore been
arbitrary. It followed that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

Other articles

The Court dismissed the applicants’ other complaints as manifestly ill-founded.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The Court held that Turkey was to pay Birtan Sinan Depe 7,500 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 in respect of costs and expenses(echrcaselaw.com editing).