SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 32705/02
by Hikmettin ATTI and Nevzat TEDİK
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Regisrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 October 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Hikmettin Attı and Mr Nevzat Tedik, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979 and 1975 respectively and live in Diyarbakır. They are represented before the Court by Mr Mesut Beştaş and Ms Meral Beştaş, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.
On 31 May 1999 the applicants were arrested at different locations in Diyarbakır.
It appears from the arrest report in respect of Mr Attı that he was arrested outside the university where he was a student. The reason for the arrest was the police officers' “suspicion of his appearance/condition” (durumundan şüphe ettiğimiz). He was taken into police custody for the “necessary investigation to be carried out”.
According to the arrest report in respect of Mr Tedik, he was arrested in a house “in relation to an investigation”. Mr Tedik was also taken to the police station.
The Diyarbakır Police Headquarters, where the applicants were being detained, wrote to the prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court on 2 and 4 June 1999, and asked for permission to detain the applicants for a number of additional days. On 4 June 1999 the prosecutor granted permission to the police to detain the applicants until 10 June 1999.
Also on 4 June 1999 the applicants were taken by police officers to a number of locations where they had allegedly carried out a number of activities on behalf of the PKK[1].
The applicants were questioned by police officers on 8 June 1999. They stated that they were PKK sympathisers and also members of the Patriotic Youth Union (Yurtsever Gençlik Birliği).
On 9 June 1999 the applicants were released from police custody and brought before the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, who took statements from them. In their statements the applicants denied having had any connections with the PKK, and submitted that they had been forced to sign their police custody statements without having been allowed to read them first.
The same day the applicants were brought before the duty judge, who remanded them in custody.
On 14 June 1999 the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment charging the applicants and 10 other persons with the offence of membership of an illegal organisation, an offence defined in Article 168 of the Criminal Code which was in force at the time.
The first hearing in the case was held on 22 June 1999 by the 1st Chamber of the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In the course of the trial the applicants were remanded in prison pending the outcome.
On 13 March 2001 the applicants were found guilty as charged and sentenced to twelve and a half years' imprisonment. Their conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 24 October 2001.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that there had been no reasonable justification for their detention between 4 June 1999 and 9 June 1999 because they had already given detailed information to the police on 4 June 1999. The police should have sent them to the judge on that day but failed to do so until 9 June 1999.
Under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention the applicants alleged that they had not been promptly informed of the reason for their arrests and that the arrest reports had not contained any such reasons.
Invoking Article 5 § 3 of the Convention the applicants complained that their 10-day police custody had been excessively long.
The applicants invoked Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with the above complaints and submitted that their relatives had not been informed about their arrests, that they had not been informed about their rights, that they had not had the assistance of a lawyer in police custody and, finally, that they had not been able to lodge an objection to their detention.
Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complained that the observations which the public prosecutor had submitted to the Court of Cassation had not been forwarded to them.
Invoking the same Article, the applicants complained that the procedure adopted by the State Security Court had not been fair in that the prosecutor and the defence lawyers had not been treated equally during the trial.
THE LAW
1. Under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention the applicants complained that their period of detention in police custody had been excessively long and that there had been no justification for their continued detention after 4 June 1999 since they had given detailed information to the police on that date.
The Court deems it appropriate to examine both complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention alone, and considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine their admissibility at the present stage. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the case to the respondent Government.
2. Under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention the applicants alleged that they had not been promptly informed of the reason for their arrests.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint at the present stage. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the case to the respondent Government.
3. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention the applicants complained that their relatives had not been informed about their arrests, that they had not been informed about their rights, that they had not had the assistance of a lawyer in police custody and, finally, that they had not been able to lodge an objection to their detention.
As regards the allegation that their families were not informed about their arrests, the Court considers that it is more appropriate to examine this complaint under Article 8 of the Convention (see Mustafa Sarı and Sibel Çolak v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 42596/98 and 42603/98, 1 February 2000).
As for the alleged lack of legal assistance while the applicants were detained in police custody, the Court deems it appropriate to examine this complaint under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention.
Concerning the remaining complaints, the Court considers that they should be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Kadir Satık v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36961/97, 25 April 2002).
The Court finds that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints at the present stage. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the case to the respondent Government.
4. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complained that the observations which the public prosecutor had submitted to the Court of Cassation had not been forwarded to them.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint at the present stage. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the case to the respondent Government.
5. As regards the applicant's remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, the Court finds that, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants' complaints concerning their right to be informed promptly of the reasons for their arrest, their right to be brought promptly before a judge following their arrest, their right to take proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in police custody, their right to a fair trial, their right to legal assistance and their right to respect for their family life;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
[1] The Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy