FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 5526/02
by Hulusi BARIŞ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrR. Türmen,
MrK. Traja,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Rgistrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Hulusi Barış, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Demirtaş, Mr L. Balkan and Ms K. Tav, lawyers practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was working in the Istanbul Municipality prior to the events giving rise to the present application.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 28 January 1992 the applicant was detained on remand.
On 4 February 1992 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court against the applicant and six other persons. The applicant was accused of having committed embezzlement contrary to Articles 202 § 2 and 227 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
On 11 March 1992 the Istanbul Assize Court held the first hearing and ordered the release of the applicant and the other suspects.
On 14 November 1995 the assize court separated the proceedings against T.Y. and E.S.K, two accused who could not be found, and acquitted the other suspects, including the applicant, of the charges against them.
On 19 December 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 14 November 1995, holding that the first-instance court should have heard T.Y. as his statements would have shed light on the circumstances of the case. The Court of Cassation then remitted the case to the Istanbul Assize Court.
On 21 October 2002 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant and the other accused, holding that the prosecution was time-barred (zamanaşımı).
The Istanbul Municipality, who had joined the proceedings as a civil party, appealed against the judgment of 21 October 2002.
In a letter dated 18 November 2002 the applicant informed the Court that the proceedings were pending before the Court of Cassation.
2. Proceedings before the administrative courts
On 5 February 1992 the applicant was removed from his office as a temporary measure following his detention on remand.
In 1995 and 1997 the applicant filed a petition with the Human Resources Department of the Municipality and requested to be reinstated in his office.
On 31 March 1997 the director of the Human Resources Department sent a letter to the applicant, informing him that the department had not reached a decision in view of the fact that the Court of Cassation had quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.
The applicant subsequently filed a petition with the Istanbul Administrative Court requesting the suspending and annulment of the decision of the Municipality of 31 March 1997.
On 29 August 1997 the administrative court dismissed the applicant’s request for suspension.
On 28 November 1997 the Istanbul Administrative Court rendered its judgment and dismissed the applicant’s case.
On 15 December 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 28 November 1997.
On 11 April 2000 the applicant requested rectification of the decision of 15 December 1999.
On 30 May 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request.
On 13 August 2001 the decision of 30 May 2001 was served on the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of both the criminal proceedings and the proceedings before the administrative courts was excessive. The applicant further complains under the same head that the Istanbul Municipality did not reinstate him in his position for an excessive length of time.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his right to presumption of innocence was violated on account of the decisions of the Istanbul Municipality and the administrative courts.
The applicant maintains under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention that his request that a hearing be held before the Supreme Administrative Court was dismissed.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him were not concluded within a reasonable time.
The Court 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 this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. As regards the applicant’s other complaints under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (c) of the Convention, 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 this part of the application should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy