SECOND SECTION

CASE OF MESUT DENİZ v. TURKEY

(Application no. 36716/07)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 November 2013

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Mesut Deniz v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
	Guido Raimondi, President,
	Danutė Jočienė,
	Peer Lorenzen,
	András Sajó,
	Işıl Karakaş,
	Nebojša Vučinić,
	Helen Keller, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Acting Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 November 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 36716/07) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Mesut Deniz (“the applicant”), on 3 August 2007.
2.  The applicant was represented by Ms G. Altay, Ms F. Yolcu and Mr H. Karakuş, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3.  On 23 April 2010 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently detained in Sincan prison.
5.  On 5 October 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers in Havza, a district of Samsun, in the course of a routine identity check. He was taken to the Havza police headquarters. According to the arrest and seizure report, the applicant was arrested at around 1.30 p.m., after he had tried to evade the police by jumping off the two‑metre high balcony of a café and was apprehended by the officers. According to the report, the applicant threw himself on the ground repeatedly and sustained various injuries. In particular, he had bruises and scratches on his back, on the left shoulder, on both arms and on the forehead. In the arrest and seizure report it was also noted that the applicant had false identity papers and, inter alia, a Kalashnikov rifle, bullets, night-vision binoculars and a walkie-talkie in his bag.
6.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the Samsun police headquarters.
7.  On the same day, at around 3.05 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor in Samsun who observed that the applicant was rather tired. He further observed the following injuries on the applicant’s person: ecchymoses on both the left and right sides of the forehead, on both the left and right scapulas and in the lumbar region; hyperaemic lesions on both the left and right sides of the neck, hyperaemia and ecchymoses on the left biceps, hyperaemia on the right biceps and ecchymoses on both calves.
8.  On 6 October 1999, at around 9.25 a.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Samsun Forensic Institute who noted that he was tired and weak and had bruises of various shapes and colours on his body. In addition to those noted in the medical report of 5 October 1999, the doctor observed the following injuries on the applicant’s body: ecchymoses, swellings and scratches of various sizes on the middle of the forehead, in the left zygomatic region, on his head, on the left clavicle, on the left side of the abdomen, on the left side of the crista iliaca region, on the outside of the left arm, on the inside of the left upper arm, on both thighs, on the right elbow and on both wrists. According to the report, there was also bleeding under both nipples, hyperaemia on the glans of the penis and three ecchymoses on the penis.
9.  On 7 October 1999, at around 10.30 a.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Samsun Forensic Institute who found no additional injuries on his body, apart from those recorded in the previous medical report of 6 October 1999.
10.  On the same day, the applicant was transferred to the Ankara police headquarters.
11.  On 12 October 1999 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Ankara Forensic Institute who, in addition to the injuries noted in the previous reports, observed oedema on the palmar surface of the third finger and sensitivity on the first toe. The doctor asked for additional examinations to be carried out by the Department of Urology and Neurology at Ankara Hospital.
12.  The applicant claimed that he had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment during his arrest and subsequent detention at the Samsun police headquarters and the Ankara police headquarters. In respect of the treatment at the Samsun police headquarters, he claimed to have been beaten, given electric shocks, hung by his arms, hosed with cold water, had his genitals and fingers squeezed, been made to lie on an icy surface and been raped by one police officer with a hose.
13.  Subsequent to his detention in police custody, the applicant was charged under the former Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation and attempting to undermine the constitutional order; he was remanded in custody.
14.  On an unspecified date, the applicant’s lawyers lodged an official complaint with the Samsun public prosecutor’s office, claiming that the applicant had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment while being held at Samsun police headquarters between 5 and 6 October 1999. They submitted that the applicant would be able to recognise the person who had given the orders, as well as some of the others involved. They said that the applicant had also been ill-treated in Ankara and that they would lodge a separate complaint to that effect.
15.  On 9 June 2000 the applicant sent a handwritten letter to the public prosecutor claiming that he had been ill-treated during his arrest and subsequent detention at both the Samsun and Ankara police headquarters. He gave a detailed account of the treatment during his arrest, at the Havza police headquarters and at Samsun police headquarters. He again submitted that he would be able to recognise the person who had given the orders at Samsun police headquarters as well as some of the others involved. As regards his detention at the Ankara police headquarters, the applicant merely stated that he had been subjected to ill-treatment there also.
16.  On 24 July 2000 a forensic medical expert, at the request of the applicant’s lawyer, lodged an opinion with the Ankara Medical Association on the basis of the medical reports issued in respect of the applicant. In that report he submitted that the injury details recorded in the arrest report had no medical significance since it had not been drafted by medically competent persons. He also criticised the fact that the applicant had not been transferred to the Department of Urology and Neurology at Ankara Hospital, as requested in the medical report of 12 October 1999. The medical expert concluded that it was not possible to determine the exact cause of the injuries noted in the medical reports.
17.  On an unspecified date the applicant began a hunger strike in prison. In 2001 he began to suffer from a mental disorder. According to a report dated 19 April 2002 issued by the Medical Board of the Ankara Numune Hospital, the applicant presented psychotic symptoms. The experts could not determine whether these symptoms were due to the hunger strike (Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome) or to schizophrenia.
18.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the Samsun public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the applicant’s allegations.
19.  On 14 November 2001 the Samsun public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Samsun Criminal Court accusing a police officer, H.Ö., whom the applicant had identified through photographs, of ill-treatment under Article 245 of the former Criminal Code.
20.  On 21 March 2002 the Samsun Criminal Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case.
21.  On 17 July 2002 the first-instance court heard the accused police officer, who denied the allegations of ill-treatment.
22.  On 28 February 2003 the applicant was brought before the Ankara Criminal Court in order to give evidence, acting on letters rogatory. However, he was not able make any statement, as he appeared to be suffering from a mental disorder.
23.  On 16 April 2003 the Samsun Criminal Court convicted H.Ö. as charged and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment and suspension from duty for a period of three months. The court then commuted the sentence to a fine and suspended its execution.
24.  On 5 December 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 16 April 2003, holding that the police officer should have been charged with torture under Article 243 of the former Criminal Code and that therefore the case should have been heard by an assize court.
25.  On 11 October 2006 the Samsun Criminal Court declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Samsun Assize Court.
26.  On 22 November 2006 the Samsun Assize Court commenced the trial.
27.  On 6 April 2007 H.Ö. made statements before the Assize Court and denied the charges against him.
28.  On 30 July 2007 the applicant gave evidence before the Ankara Assize Court acting on letters rogatory. He waived his right to a lawyer. He reiterated that he had been ill-treated at the Samsun police headquarters and that, although he was not completely certain, the accused appeared to be one of the police officers who had ill-treated him. In this connection, the applicant claimed that about twelve police officers had ill‑treated him, but that at the time when he had been asked to identify the perpetrators he had been on hunger strike, depressed and suffering from health problems. He reiterated that he was not certain whether the accused was one of those who had ill-treated him and affirmed that he wanted those responsible to be prosecuted. In addition, he stated that he did not wish to join the proceedings as a civil party.
29.  On 26 September 2007 the Samsun Assize Court acquitted H.Ö. of the charges against him. In its decision the court held that while the forensic medical reports established that the applicant had been ill‑treated between 5 and 6 October 1999, the applicant could not formally identify the accused as responsible and, as such, there was insufficient evidence to convict him.
30.  On 7 January 2010 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the first‑instance court’s decision. In particular, she maintained that since the applicant suffered from Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome and schizophrenia he could not be deemed to have understood the consequences of waiving his right to a lawyer and not joining the proceedings as a civil party, and that therefore the court should have assigned him a lawyer. In addition, the lawyer submitted that the applicant and the accused should have been allowed to confront each other in order to give the former the opportunity to identify the latter. The applicant’s lawyer submitted a copy of the report dated 19 April 2002 issued by the Medical Board of the Ankara Numune Hospital in support of the appeal.
31.  On 11 January 2010 the applicant’s lawyer applied to the Samsun Assize Court requesting it to annul its previous decision (eski hale getirme) to serve its judgment on the applicant, on the ground that it should have been served on his legal representative, and to disregard the applicant’s statement regarding his wish not to intervene in the proceedings as a civil party so as to enable him to lodge an appeal against the decision. In her application, the applicant’s lawyer also maintained that since the applicant suffered from Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, the rogatory court should have assigned him a lawyer, even if he had waived that right.
32.  On 19 January 2010 the Samsun Assize Court held that the applicant could not lodge an appeal against the judgment of 26 September 2007 as he had not joined the proceedings as a civil party.
33.  On 5 February 2010 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation against the Samsun Assize Court’s decision of 19 January 2010.
34.  According to information obtained by the Registry from the website of the Court of Cassation, on 4 May 2012 the higher court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
35.  A description of the domestic law and practice concerning prosecution for ill-treatment in force at the material time can be found in Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 96-98, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts).
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3, 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
36.  The applicant alleged under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody at the Samsun police headquarters, and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment.
The Court considers that these complaints should be examined from the standpoint of Article 3 alone, which reads:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A.  Admissibility
37.  The Government argued that the application should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In this connection, they stated that the applicant should have joined the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused police officers. They further argued that the applicant had failed to make use of administrative remedies in respect of his complaints of ill‑treatment. The Government submitted, in particular, that the applicant could have sought compensation under Article 125 of the Constitution on the basis of the authorities’ strict liability.
38.  The Court notes that it has examined and rejected similar preliminary objections by the Government in previous cases (see Ferhat Kaya v. Turkey, no. 12673/05, § 30, 25 September 2012; Uyan v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 15750/02, § 48, 21 October 2008; Karayiğit v. Turkey (dec.), no. 63181/00, 5 October 2004; and İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 61, ECHR 2000‑VII). It finds no particular circumstances in the instant case which would require it to depart from its previous findings. Accordingly, it rejects the Government’s preliminary objection.
39.  The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B.  Merits
1.  The responsibility of the respondent State in the light of the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention
40.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment were unsubstantiated. They maintained that the injuries observed on the applicant’s body had been caused by his own actions and that according to the arrest and seizure report he had sustained his injuries during his arrest.
41.  The applicant submitted that he had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment amounting to torture while detained at the Samsun police headquarters. He submitted, in particular, that he had been kicked and slapped, given electric shocks, hung by his arms, hosed with cold water, had his penis and fingers squeezed and twisted, his toes pressed and been made to lie on an icy surface.
42.  The Court reiterates that Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies, making no provision for exceptions, and permitting no derogation from it under Article 15 § 2 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V).   It reiterates that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused and to produce evidence casting doubt on the veracity of the victim’s allegations, particularly if those allegations are supported by medical reports. Failing this, a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Selmouni, cited above, § 87, and Çelik and İmret v. Turkey, no. 44093/98, § 39, 26 October 2004). In assessing such evidence, the Court has adopted the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. Sufficient proof may, however, follow from the coexistence of adequately strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Hacı Özen v. Turkey, no. 46286/99, § 46, 12 April 2007).
43.  Furthermore, where the events in issue lie wholly or in large part within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons under their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries occurring during detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Hacı Özen, cited above, § 47).
44.  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court first observes that in its judgment of 26 September 2007 the Samsun Assize Court found it established, on the basis of the medical reports dated 6 and 7 October 1999, that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment on 5 and 6 October 1999 (see paragraphs 8, 9 and 29 above). In this connection, the Court notes that three medical reports were drawn up in respect of the applicant during his period in police custody at the Samsun police headquarters, and these were also referred to by the Samsun Assize Court. The medical report of 5 October 1999, made at the beginning of the applicant’s detention, recorded the applicant as having sustained injuries on his forehead, both scapulas, the lumbar region, the neck, both biceps and both calves. The second and third medical reports, drawn up on 6 and 7 October 1999, recorded that the applicant had the injuries noted in the report of 5 October 1999 and, in addition, various types of injuries to his left zygomatic region, his head, the left clavicle, the left side of the abdomen, the left side of the crista iliaca region, the left arm, both thighs, the right elbow, both wrists, both nipples and the penis (see paragraphs 7-9 above).
45.  The Court notes that neither the Government nor the applicant disputed the findings of these medical reports. However, they put forward different explanations as to how the applicant had actually sustained the injuries.  The applicant claimed that he had been beaten, given electric shocks, hung by his arms, hosed with cold water, had his genitals and fingers squeezed, been made to lie on an icy surface and been raped by one police officer with a hose, whereas the Government alleged that the injuries had occurred when he had attempted to jump off the balcony of the café where he was arrested.
46.  The Court observes that the medical reports of 6 and 7 October 1999 contain findings which were not included in the report of 5 October 1999. The Court notes, in this connection, that the Government have not provided any explanation for those injuries. It further observes that the findings in the medical reports are at least consistent with the applicant’s allegations that he was beaten severely and had his penis twisted and squeezed.
47.  The Court reiterates that States are responsible for the welfare of all persons held in detention. Such persons are in a vulnerable situation and the authorities have a duty to protect them (see Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 30, 20 July 2004). Bearing in mind the authorities’ obligation to account for injuries caused to persons under their control in custody, and in the absence of a convincing explanation by the Government in the instant case, the Court considers that at least the injuries recorded in the medical reports of 6 and 7 October 1999 which were not noted in the report of 5 October 1999 were the result of treatment for which the Government bore responsibility. As a result, the Court, unlike the Government, agrees with the conclusion of the Samsun Assize Court that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment when he was detained at the Samsun police headquarters.
48.  Having regard to the nature and degree of the ill-treatment and to the strong inferences that can be drawn from the evidence that it was inflicted in order to obtain information from the applicant about his suspected connection with an illegal organisation, the Court finds that the ill-treatment involved very serious and cruel suffering that can only be characterised as torture (see, among other authorities, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 115, ECHR 2000‑VII; Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 47, 2 November 2004; and Koçak v. Turkey, no. 32581/96, § 48, 3 May 2007).
49.  Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb.
2.  The responsibility of the respondent State in the light of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention
50.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been subjected to an effective investigation. Statements had been taken from the applicant and the accused police officer and the medical reports had been examined by the public prosecutor and the national courts.
51.   The applicant maintained that the criminal proceedings brought against the police officers had been ineffective, as he had been unable to put questions to the accused police officer during the criminal proceedings, which furthermore had not been concluded within a reasonable time.
52.  The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention requires the authorities to investigate allegations of ill-treatment when they are “arguable” and “raise a reasonable suspicion” (see, in particular, Ay v. Turkey, no. 30951/96, §§ 59-60, 22 March 2005). The minimum standards of effectiveness defined by the Court’s case-law include the requirements that the investigation be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny. It is beyond doubt that a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context. A prompt response by the authorities in investigating allegations of ill-treatment may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Batı and Others, cited above, § 136). When the official investigation has led to the institution of proceedings in the national courts, the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must satisfy the requirement of the prohibition of ill-treatment. While there is no absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction or in a particular sentence, the national courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow grave attacks on physical and moral integrity to go unpunished (see Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
53.  The Court has found above that the respondent State was responsible, under Article 3 of the Convention, for the injuries sustained by the applicant. An effective investigation was therefore required.
54.  In this connection, the Court observes that an investigation into the applicant’s allegations was initiated by the public prosecutor’s office. The applicant made statements to the public prosecutor and was asked to identify the police officers who had ill-treated him. This investigation led to the committal for trial of H.Ö., identified as one of the police officers who had taken part in both the arrest and the questioning of the applicant.
55.  The Court observes, however, serious shortcomings in the investigation and in the ensuing criminal proceedings. Firstly, neither the public prosecutor nor the national courts obtained statements from the other police officers who were on duty at the time of the applicant’s detention in police custody, or from any other witnesses, such as persons detained at the same time as the applicant. The courts relied solely on the statements of the applicant, who apparently was unable to give evidence in court on account of mental instability. Furthermore, the national courts failed to give the applicant or his lawyer the opportunity to examine the accused in person. As a result, relying on the medical reports and in the absence of any witness statements, the Samsun Assize Court found it established that the applicant had been ill-treated but it failed to identify and punish the perpetrators. Thirdly, there is nothing in the case-file to indicate that the accused police officer was suspended from duty while he was under investigation. On this point, the Court underlines the importance of the suspension from duty of the agent under investigation in order to prevent any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Abdülsamet Yaman cited above, § 55). Finally, the Court cannot but notice that there were substantial delays in the criminal proceedings in question: they lasted more than nine years, a delay that runs contrary to the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition.
56.  Thus, in view of the aforementioned shortcomings, and in particular the substantial delay in the conduct of the proceedings, the Court finds that the perpetrators of acts of violence enjoyed virtual impunity, despite the existence of incontrovertible evidence (see Batı and Others, cited above, § 147). The Court therefore considers that the investigation and the ensuing criminal proceedings were inadequate and therefore in breach of the State’s procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention.
57.  Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.
II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
58.  The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his allegation and thus denied him the opportunity to claim compensation for his grievances under Article 3.
Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
A.  Admissibility
59.  The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B.  Merits
60.  The Government submitted that there had been an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.
61.  The applicant maintained that the national authorities had failed to punish those responsible for his ill‑treatment and that, as a result, he had not had an effective remedy whereby he could claim compensation.
62.  The Court reiterates that in a number of judgments concerning cases brought against police officers that were time-barred, the Court concluded that the civil remedies had been inoperative as a result of the shortcomings in the investigations and substantial delays in the proceedings and found a violation of Article 13 (see, among others, Batı and Others, cited above, § 148; Müdet Kömürcü v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 40160/05, § 36, 21 July 2009; and Serdar Güzel v. Turkey, no. 39414/06, § 50, 15 March 2011). The Court considers that the same considerations are applicable in the instant case, where the criminal proceedings, which lasted for more than nine years, resulted in the acquittal of the accused police officer. The Court consequently finds no reason in the instant case to depart from its previous conclusions.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
63.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A.  Damage
64.  The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
65.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s claim was excessive.
66.  In view of the violations found under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant must have suffered pain and distress which cannot be compensated for solely by the Court’s finding of a violation. It therefore awards the applicant the sum claimed by him in full, namely EUR 20,000, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B.  Costs and expenses
67.  The applicant also claimed EUR 6,750 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. He claimed EUR 6,540 for his lawyers’ fees and EUR 210 for translation, postal and photocopying costs. He submitted that the amount claimed for his lawyers’ fees corresponded to their work carried out between 2007 and 2010 for the present case.
68.  The Government contested the claim.
69.  According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. The Court notes at the outset that no invoice has been submitted to substantiate the costs. It therefore rejects those claims. As regards the lawyers’ fees, in view of the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 2,000.

C.  Default interest
70.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1.  Declares the application admissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb;

3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb;

4.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;

5.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)  EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)  EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 November 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Lawrence Early	Guido Raimondi
	Acting Registrar	President