[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF KARAGÖZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
(Applications
nos. 14352/05, 38484/05 and 38513/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 July 2010
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 Karagöz and
others v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş,
judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 June 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in three applications (nos. 14352/05, 38484/05 and
38513/05) 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 three Turkish
nationals, Ms Gönül Karagöz, Mr Haydar Ballıkaya
and Mr Bekir Çadırcı (“the applicants”),
on 4 April, 12 October and 7 October 2005.
- The
applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr E.
Kanar, Ms F. Karakaş Doğan, Mr and Ms Kırdök and
Ms M. Hanbayat, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent.
- The
applicants alleged in particular that they had
been subjected to torture during their detention in police custody
and that ensuing criminal proceedings against the police officers
involved had been ineffective. The applicants relied on Articles 3,
6 and 13 of the Convention.
- On
22 May and 24 June 2009 respectively the President of the Second
Section decided to give notice of the applications to the Government.
It was also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the
same time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES
A. Gönül
Karagöz v Turkey (14352/05)
- The
applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.
- On
21 and 22 February 1997 the applicant and a number of other suspects
were taken into police custody by officers from the Anti-Terrorist
Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, where they were kept
until 6 March 1997 and allegedly ill-treated by police officers.
The applicant stated in particular that she had been beaten, and
subjected to sexual harassment and Palestinian hanging.
- On
26 February 1997 the applicant was taken to a State hospital for a
medical examination. The report drawn up by a doctor indicated that
the applicant did not bear any signs of ill-treatment.
- On
4 March 1997 the applicant was taken to a forensic doctor who
reported a lightly bruised area on her left shoulder, old scabs of
various sizes on the lower parts of her legs, sensitivity in her
thumbs and index fingers on both hands and pain in her arms. During
the subsequent domestic proceedings, on 15 October 1999 the
Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute established that the injuries
noted on the applicant's body had rendered her unfit to work for
three days.
- On
6 March 1997 the applicant was brought before the Istanbul Public
Prosecutor. She denied all accusations against her and mentioned the
ill-treatment she had been subjected to. She was subsequently
detained pending trial.
- Following
the complaints of ill-treatment lodged by the applicant and fourteen
other detainees, an investigation concerning eight police officers on
duty at the time was initiated. On 8 May 1997 the Fatih Public
Prosecutor took statements from the police officers concerned and, on
23 June 1997, prepared a summary of the case (fezleke)
proposing that the eight police officers who had questioned the
fifteen complainants at the Istanbul Security Headquarters be charged
with inflicting torture under Article 243 of the former Criminal
Code.
- On
4 July 1997 the Istanbul Public Prosecutor filed a bill of
indictment, charging the police officers as proposed.
- On
17 July 1998 the Disciplinary Board of the Istanbul Police (İl
Polis Disiplin Kurulu) decided not to impose any disciplinary
measures on the police officers owing to a lack of evidence
establishing that they had committed the acts complained of.
- On
an unspecified date the applicant intervened in the criminal
proceedings as a civil party. During a hearing held on 29 April 1999,
the applicant identified one of the police officers in the hearing
room as another one of those who had allegedly been among the
perpetrators of her ill-treatment. On 25 October 2000 an additional
bill of indictment was issued in respect of that officer.
- In
his opinion delivered on 8 July 2002, the public prosecutor
recommended that the police officers be convicted as charged.
- On
2 December 2002 the Istanbul Assize Court acquitted five of the
police officers for lack of evidence. The remaining four officers
were sentenced to eleven months and twenty days' imprisonment and
disbarred from public service for two months and twenty-seven days.
This sentence was suspended at the discretion of the trial court
judges, who noted that the police officers did not have criminal
records and were not likely to perpetrate any crimes if their
sentence was suspended. One of the judges expressed a dissenting
opinion.
- The
applicant appealed. On 1 April 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the
acquittal decision regarding the police officer who had been
identified by the applicant during the proceedings. In addition, the
Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in respect of the other
acquitted police officers on the ground that the prosecution had been
time-barred. It subsequently dismissed the criminal proceedings.
Finally, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in respect of
the four convicted police officers on procedural grounds, stating, in
particular, that the sentence given did not take into account the
existence of several victims, and remitted the case to the Istanbul
Assize Court.
- On
11 November 2004 the Istanbul Assize Court discontinued the criminal
proceedings in respect of the remaining four officers on the ground
that the prosecution was time-barred.
- The
applicant appealed. On 29 November 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld
the judgment.
B. Haydar Ballıkaya v. Turkey (38484/05)
and Bekir Çadırcı v. Turkey (38513/05)
- The
applicants were born in 1965 and 1974 respectively and live in
Istanbul.
- On
25 November 1997 the applicants were taken into police custody at the
Istanbul Security Headquarters, where they were held until 2 December
1997 and questioned regarding their alleged involvement in a
terrorist organisation.
- In
his statements made before the State Security Court and before the
Fatih Public Prosecutor on 2 December 1997, the first applicant
complained that he had been subjected to torture by police officers
while in custody.
- On
2 December 1997 the applicants and eight other detainees were
examined by a forensic doctor who noted, in respect of the first
applicant, 1- 3 cm crusted scars on various parts of both hands,
particularly around his wrists, a 2 cm healing lesion under his left
armpit and a haematoma and yellow marks on and around his right
toenail. As to the second applicant, it was reported that he had had
a 1 x 6 cm hyperaemia and abrasion which had started under the left
armpit and extended towards the outside of his armpit.
- Both
applicants, who were interviewed by the Fatih Public Prosecutor on 10
March 1998, mainly said that they had been blindfolded and beaten,
that their testicles had been squeezed, and that they had been hung
by the arms and put under psychological pressure throughout the whole
interrogation. The second applicant also claimed to have been sprayed
with hot and cold pressurised water.
- On
17 April 1998 the Istanbul Public Prosecutor filed a bill of
indictment in which he charged four police officers (S.A., M.C., E.M.
and N.C.) with ill treating the applicants and two other
detainees.
- On
25 June 1998 the second applicant joined the proceedings as a civil
party.
- During
hearings held on 26 April 1999 the second applicant, and on 24 June
1999 the first applicant, reiterated their complaints before the
court. The first applicant also identified E.M. and S.A. as two of
the police officers who had ill-treated him and, reiterating his
previous complaints, said that he had been sprayed with pressurised
water.
- Throughout
the proceedings, the accused police officers claimed that the
applicants had shown resistance at the time of their arrest which
explained the marks found on their body. Consequently, at the hearing
held on 29 June 2000, the applicants requested that the Forensic
Medicine Institute be consulted in order to determine the exact cause
of the marks on their bodies.
- The
Forensic Medicine Institute issued its report on 19 December 2001. As
the report contained no findings relating to the first applicant, on
3 October 2002, the court asked the Forensic Medicine Institute
to issue its report in respect of the first applicant.
- In
its report issued on 19 February 2003 the Forensic Medicine Institute
concluded that the crusted scars on the first applicant's hands and
wrists could have been about seven days old at the time of his
examination by the forensic doctor on 2 December 1997, whereas the
lesion under his left armpit and the yellow mark around the right toe
could have occurred five to seven days previously. As for the
haematoma on his right toenail, the report stated that it was two to
three weeks old. Finally the report stated that the lesions under his
armpit and the yellow mark on his toenail could have been caused by
the application of a solid object directly to the area or by someone
hitting those parts of his body or having them forced against a solid
and dented surface. The report added that it was not medically
possible to identify which one of these three reasons had been the
exact cause of each finding.
- On
20 June 2003, on the basis of the evidence in the case file, the
Istanbul Assize Court held that all three complainants had been
subjected to ill treatment which fell under Article 243 of the
Criminal Code. Accordingly, the police officers had inflicted this
treatment intentionally in order to extract confessions. The first
applicant had been able to identify M.C. and S.A. at one of the
hearings. Referring, inter alia, to the findings in the
medical reports, the court found M.C. and S.A. guilty as charged and
sentenced them to one year's imprisonment, further prohibiting them
from holding public office for a period of three months. For lack of
evidence, the court acquitted N.C. in respect of the accusations made
by the first applicant and S.A. and E.M. in respect of the
accusations made by the second applicant. In reaching this conclusion
the court took into account the fact that the second applicant could
not identify the perpetrators.
- Both
parties appealed. On 29 March 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the
judgment in respect of N.C., M.C. and S.A. on the ground that the
investigation had been insufficient. The court noted in particular
that the medical reports on the complainants, issued when they were
taken into police custody, and their statements taken there, were
missing from the case file. As to the judgment acquitting S.A. and
E.M. in respect of the complaints lodged by the second applicant, the
court initially quashed it and then dismissed the proceedings on the
ground that the prosecution had become time-barred.
- The
case was remitted to the Istanbul Assize Court, which, on 24 June
2005, decided to discontinue the proceedings in respect of M.C. and
S.A. because the prosecution had ultimately become time-barred.
- On
26 July 2005 the second applicant appealed. On 18 April 2007 the
Court of Cassation upheld the Istanbul Assize Court's judgment with
simple reference to the hearings, evidence, the trial court's
discretion and the case file in general.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- A
description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be
found in Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos.
33097/96 and 57834/00, ECHR 2004 IV), Okkalı
v. Turkey (no. 52067/99, § 71, ECHR 2006 ...) and
Zeynep Özcan v. Turkey (no. 45906/99, 20 February 2007).
THE LAW
I. JOINDER
- Given
the similarity of the applications, both as regards fact and law, the
Court deems it appropriate to join them.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had
been subjected to torture whilst in police custody. In this
connection they also relied on Article 13 of the Convention and
alleged that they had been denied an effective domestic remedy in
respect of their complaint of ill-treatment by the police officers
because the public prosecution had become time-barred, resulting in
the discontinuance of the proceedings. The applicant in application
no. 38513/05 also invoked Article 6 of the Convention in this
respect.
- The
applicant in application no. 38513/05 further asserted that he had
been denied the right to seek compensation before the civil courts
because the criminal proceedings against the police officers had been
dismissed for statutory time limitations. He relied on Article 13 of
the Convention.
- The
Court considers that these complaints should be examined from the
standpoint of Articles 3 and 13 alone, which read as follows in their
respective order:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
“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
- The Government argued that the
applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to
them within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In
this connection, they submitted that the applicants had not availed
themselves of the civil and administrative-law remedies which could
have provided reparation for the harm which they had allegedly
sustained. Furthermore, the third applicant had not appealed against
the Istanbul Assize Court's judgment of 24 June 2005, hence not
exhausting criminal proceedings either.
- The
Court reiterates that it has already examined and rejected the
Government's preliminary objections (see, in
particular, Müdet Kömürcü v. Turkey
(no. 2), no. 40160/05, § 20, 21 July 2009). The
Court finds no particular circumstances in the instant cases
which would require it to depart from its previous findings in the
above-mentioned case. It therefore rejects the Government's
preliminary objection.
- The Court notes that these
complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also notes that they areit
is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. TheyIt
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
- In
respect of the first applicant the Government maintained that the
treatment of the police officers had not attained the level of
severity proscribed by Article 3, whereas the second and third
applicants had resisted the police officers during their arrest,
which was reflected by the marks on their bodies. In this respect,
the Government added that the medical reports, in particular the last
one issued by the Forensic Medicine Institute, did not lead to the
conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the findings on the second
and third applicants' bodies had resulted from torture inflicted by
police officers.
- The
Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments
concerning Article 3 (see, in particular, Ivan Vasilev v.
Bulgaria, no. 48130/99, § 62, 12 April 2007;
Yavuz v. Turkey, no. 67137/01, § 38, 10 January
2006; Emirhan Yıldız and
Others v. Turkey, no. 61898/00, §§ 41-42, 5
December 2006; Diri v. Turkey,
no. 68351/01, §§ 35-39, 31 July 2007; Çolak and
Filizer v. Turkey, nos. 32578/96 and 32579/96, § 30,
8 January 2004). It will examine the
present cases in the light of these principles.
a. Gönül Karagöz v. Turkey
(14352/05)
- The
Court notes that the applicant was held in police custody between 21
February and 6 March 1997. Two medical reports were drafted in
respect of the applicant during this period, on 26 February and
4 March 1997. The first report, drafted five days after her
arrest, indicated no signs of ill-treatment on the applicant's body,
whereas the latter report, drawn up two days before the end of police
custody, referred to a lightly bruised area on the applicant's left
shoulder, old scabs of various sizes on the lower parts of the legs,
sensitivity of the thumb and index fingers of both hands and pain in
the arms. It was later established by the Istanbul Forensic Medicine
Institute that those findings had rendered the applicant unfit for
work for three days. In the absence of any finding in the first
medical report, the Court considers that the marks described in the
latter report must have occurred during the subsequent days while the
applicant was still in police custody. In this connection the Court
notes that the applicant's allegations included beatings and
Palestinian hanging which match the findings indicated in the latter
report.
- Under
the circumstances, the Court concludes that the injuries observed on
the applicant must be attributable to a form of ill-treatment for
which the authorities at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul
Security Headquarters bear responsibility.
- Furthermore,
the Court takes into account the decision of the Istanbul Assize
Court which, after acquainting itself with the evidence and examining
the facts of the case, found four of the police officers guilty, but
that that decision was quashed by the Court of Cassation on a
sentencing technicality (see paragraph 16 above).
- As
to the seriousness of the treatment in question, the Court reiterates
that, under its case-law in this sphere (see, among other
authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§
96-97, ECHR 1999-V), in order to determine whether a particular form
of ill-treatment should be qualified as torture, it must have regard
to the distinction, embodied in Article 3, between this notion and
that of inhuman or degrading treatment. It appears that it was the
intention that the Convention should, by means of this distinction,
attach a special stigma to deliberate inhuman treatment causing very
serious and cruel suffering.
- In
this connection, the Court considers that the treatment complained of
was inflicted intentionally by the police officers with the purpose
of extracting confessions while the applicant was in custody. In
these circumstances, the Court finds that this act was particularly
serious and cruel and capable of causing severe pain and suffering.
It therefore concludes that this ill-treatment amounted to torture
within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
- There
has therefore been a substantive violation of Article 3 of the
Convention.
b. Haydar Ballıkaya v. Turkey
(38484/05) and Bekir Çadırcı v. Turkey (38513/05)
- The
Court observes that in Müdet Kömürcü
(cited above, § 26) where
it examined the allegations of ill-treatment of an applicant who had
also been party to the same criminal proceedings against the police
officers as in the present case, it found that the treatment to which
the applicant in that case had been subjected had amounted to a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
- Having
examined the documentary evidence submitted by the parties, the Court
does not consider there to be any material difference between the
above-mentioned case and the present ones. In this connection, it
observes that, after acquainting itself with the evidence and having
had the benefit of hearing various witnesses and of evaluating their
credibility, the Istanbul Assize Court, in its decision of 20 June
2003, found that all the complainants, including the applicants in
the present cases, had been ill-treated by police officers from the
Istanbul Security Headquarters. In convicting those police officers
under Article 243 of the Criminal Code, the court also found that the
police officers had inflicted such treatment intentionally in order
to extract confessions (see paragraph 30 above). However, the
proceedings were subsequently discontinued for being time barred.
In the instant case no cogent evidence has been provided which could
lead the Court to depart from the findings of fact of the
first-instance court in this respect. The Court therefore concludes
that the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicants amounted to
torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
- Accordingly,
there has been a substantive violation of Article 3 of the Convention
in the present cases.
2. The responsibility of the respondent State in the
light of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention
- The
Court reiterates that, in a number of similar cases where
prosecutions have been time-barred following lengthy proceedings, it
has noted that the criminal law system has proved to be far from
rigorous and lacking in the dissuasive effect capable of ensuring the
effective prevention of unlawful acts such as those complained of by
the applicants (see Müdet Kömürcü,
cited above, § 30; Salmanoğlu and Polattaş
v. Turkey, no. 15828/03, §
101, 17 March 2009; Erdoğan Yılmaz and Others v. Turkey,
no. 19374/03, § 57, 14 October 2008).
- Having
examined the documentary evidence submitted by the parties, the Court
observes that the Turkish criminal-law system was applied in the same
manner in the instant cases. The Court therefore concludes that the
criminal proceedings brought against the accused police officers in
all three cases were inadequate.
- Accordingly,
there has been a procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
3. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
- The
applicant in application no. 38513/05 also asserted that he had been
denied the right to seek compensation before the civil courts because
the criminal proceedings against the police officers had been
dismissed for statutory time limitations. The applicant relied on
Article 13 of the Convention.
- The
Government rejected that allegation and maintained that effective
domestic civil-
law remedies had been available to the applicant.
- The Court refers to its finding
above (see paragraphs 39-41 above) and reiterates its conclusion in a
number of previous cases that the civil-remedies were inoperative in
similar situations, because they did not enable the applicants to
obtain compensation for the alleged violations (see, among others,
Batı and Others,
cited above, § 148). The Court finds no reason in the instant
case to depart from its earlier conclusion.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly,
the applicant in application no. 14352/05 asserted that, in violation
of Article 6 of the Convention, the length of the criminal
proceedings lodged against the police officers had been excessive, as
a result of which the prosecution had become time-barred. Under the
same Article, she also questioned the independence and impartiality
of the domestic court, which had not initiated criminal proceedings
against the hierarchical superiors of the nine police officers tried.
- The
Court notes that these complaints are linked to the ones examined
above and must likewise be declared admissible.
- However,
having regard to the circumstances of the cases and to its finding of
a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention
(see paragraphs 53-55 above) the Court considers that it has examined
the main legal question raised in the present applications. It
concludes therefore that there is no need to make separate rulings in
respect of these other complaints (see, mutatis mutandis,
Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64,
10 May 2007; K.Ö. v. Turkey, no. 71795/01,
§ 50, 11 December 2007; Juhnke v. Turkey,
no. 52515/99, § 99, 13 May 2008).
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- 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, costs and expenses
- The applicant in application no. 14352/05 claimed
100,000 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 48,000 euros (EUR)) in
respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 100,000 for non-pecuniary
damage. Referring to the Istanbul Bar Association's scale of fees,
she also claimed TRY 20,725 (approximately EUR 9,900) for costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court,
which included expenditure such as telephone calls, mail,
translation, stationary and travelling.
The
applicant in application no. 38484/05 claimed EUR 10,000 for
pecuniary damage and EUR 40,000 for non-pecuniary damage. In
respect of costs and expenses he also claimed EUR 7,000. In this
connection the applicant submitted a lawyer's contract for TRY 10,500
(approximately EUR 9,600), the Istanbul Bar Association's scale of
fees and a postal receipt. He finally demanded an additional payment
of 4.26% in interest.
The
applicant in application no. 38513/05 did not request pecuniary
damage but claimed EUR 30,000 as non-pecuniary damage. Regarding
costs and expenses, he claimed EUR 5,000 for lawyer's fees and EUR
600 for translation and transportation costs, stationary and postal
expenses. In support of his claims the applicant submitted a lawyer's
contract, a schedule of costs, which indicates fifty-three hours of
legal work carried out by his representative, and a list of the
claimed expenses.
- The
Government contested these claims and asserted that only costs
actually incurred could be reimbursed.
- As
regards the alleged pecuniary damage sustained, the Court observes
that the applicants did not produce any document in support of their
claims, which the Court accordingly dismisses. However, it considers
that the applicants must have suffered non-pecuniary damage which
cannot be compensated solely by the finding of violations. Having
regard to the gravity of the violations and to equitable
considerations, it awards the applicants the full sums claimed under
this head.
- In
respect of the claims by the applicant in application no. 14352/05
regarding costs and expenses, the Court notes that an applicant is
entitled to reimbursement under this head only in so far as it has
been shown that the claimed costs and expenses have been actually and
necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In this
connection the Court notes that a bar association's scale of fees
submitted without additional supporting documents cannot be
considered sufficient to substantiate a claim under this head (see
Güngil v. Turkey, no. 28388/03, § 33, 10 March
2009). Accordingly, the Court makes no costs award to this applicant.
As for the claims by the other two applicants, regard being had to
the information and documents in its possession as well as the above
criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award each of these
applicants EUR 3,500.
B. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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
- Decides to join the applications;
- Declares the applications admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
3 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs
in all three applications;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention in respect of application no. 38513/05;
- Holds
that there is no need to examine separately the complaints under
Article 6 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three
months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance
with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts, to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on
the date of settlement:
(i) to
Ms Gönül Karagöz, EUR 48,000 (forty-eight thousand
euros), to Mr Haydar Ballıkaya, EUR 40,000 (forty thousand
euros), to Mr Bekir Çadırcı EUR 30,000 (thirty
thousand euros) plus any tax that may be payable, in respect of
non pecuniary damage;
(ii) to
Mr Haydar Ballıkaya and Mr Bekir Çadırcı
EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros) each plus any tax
that may be payable to them, 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicants'
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 July 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Françoise Tulkens
Deputy
Registrar President
