SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 22077/03
by Fetullah AKPOLAT
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Antonella Mularoni,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 April 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Fetullah Akpolat, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and was detained in Üsküdar prison at the time of his application to the Court. He is represented before the Court by Mr F. Babaoğlu, a lawyer practising in Ankara.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 6 January 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody in Istanbul on suspicion of being a member of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party, an illegal organisation).
On 13 January 1993 he was brought before a single judge at the Istanbul Security Court who remanded him in custody.
On 25 January 1993 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and seventeen other persons. The applicant was charged with membership of the PKK under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code.
On 10 October 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court, after having held ten hearings, found the applicant guilty of activities carried out for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. The applicant was sentenced to death, commuted to life imprisonment.
On 12 February 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the ground that the Istanbul State Security Court found that the applicant had committed certain acts which had not been included in the bill of indictment of 25 January 1993.
On 12 September 2002 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an additional bill of indictment against the applicant, containing allegations that the applicant had committed the acts referred to in the State Security Court's judgment of 10 October 2001.
On 5 November 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court once again convicted the applicant under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. (This judgment was not submitted to the Court).
On 12 April 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 5 November 2003.
On 23 September 2004 the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's request for rectification of the decision of 12 April 2004.
Meanwhile, on 25 December 2002 the applicant's relatives sent him a Kurdish dictionary, which was seized on the authority of the prison management. The applicant applied to the Üsküdar Judge of Execution requesting the annulment of the prison administration's decision. On an unspecified date, the Üsküdar Judge of Execution ordered the prison administration to give the dictionary to the applicant, holding that learning of the Kurdish language was authorised by Law no. 4771.
On 19 November 2003 the Prison Disciplinary Board seized a letter written by the applicant and addressed to the “President of the United Kingdom” with a view to destroying it on the ground that the letter contained elements of propaganda in favour of Abdullah Öcalan.
On 3 December 2003 the applicant lodged an objection to the decision of 19 November 2003 with the Üsküdar Judge of Execution, who subsequently upheld the Prison Disciplinary Board's decision on 10 December 2003.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention was excessive.
The applicant submitted under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had not been concluded within a reasonable time.
Relying on Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the seizure of the dictionary sent to him and the letter that he had wished to send to the “President of the United Kingdom”.
By a letter dated 27 April 2005, the applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried him.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his pre-trial detention had exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant further maintained that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him was excessive.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention of an unjustified interference with his correspondence on account of the seizure of a letter that he had wished to send to the “President of the United Kingdom”.
The Court considers that this complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 8 of the Convention alone. It further considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.
3. The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention about the seizure of the dictionary sent to him. By a letter dated 27 April 2005 he further complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court until 1999.
The Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence. It follows that these complaints should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaints concerning his right to release pending trial, to a fair hearing within a reasonable time and the alleged unjustified interference with his right to respect for his correspondence;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy