SECOND SECTION
CASE OF ERDOĞAN ÇOBAN v. TURKEY
(Application no. 18375/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 May 2013
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Erdoğan Çoban v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 18375/09) 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 Erdoğan Çoban (“the applicant”), on 14 March 2009.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms G. Altay and Mr H. Karakuş, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. On 11 May 2010 the application was declared partly inadmissible and the complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the lack of remedies in that respect were communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul.
5. On 24 April 2001 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant along with other two suspects, with aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP-C.
6. On 19 September 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court joined the case with another case (1999/372) which was already pending before it.
7. On 29 December 2001 the applicant was detained on account of being a member of the DHKP-C.
8. On 31 December 2001 the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court brought a further case against the applicant before the Istanbul State Security Court.
9. On 8 March 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court joined all cases against the applicant under the file number 1999/372.
10. On 3 December 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of membership of the DHKP-C and sentenced him to twelve years and six months imprisonment.
11. On 25 August 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision.
12. In 2004, following a constitutional amendment, state security courts were abolished and the case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. On 10 September 2004 the Istanbul Assize Court held the first hearing in the case.
13. On 8 April 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court released the applicant from detention
14. According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.
THE LAW
I. DISJOINDER OF THE APPLICATION
15. The Court deems it appropriate to disjoin the present application from the other applications to which it was joined in its partial decision of 11 May 2010 (applications nos. 27737/07, 18375/09 and 26070/09).
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
16. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention,
17. The Government contested the argument.
18. The period to be taken into consideration began on 24 April 2001 and it is still continuing. It has already lasted eleven years and ten months for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
19. The Court notes that this complaint 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
20. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, 16 July 2009).
21. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present applications (see, for example, Mehmet Ali Çelik v. Turkey, no. 42296/07, § 19, 27 January 2009).
22. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
23. The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law whereby he could have contested the length of the proceedings brought against him.
24. The Government contested the argument.
A. Admissibility
25. The Court notes that this complaint 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
26. The Court has examined similar issues in previous applications and has found violations of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the lack of an effective remedy under Turkish law whereby the applicants could have contested the length of the proceedings at issue (see Daneshpayeh, cited above, §§ 35-38). It finds no reason to depart from that conclusion in the present case.
The Court accordingly concludes that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
27. 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
28. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
29. The Government contested these claims.
30. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it awards the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
31. The applicant claimed EUR 3,200 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court in respect of his lawyer’s fee, translation and postal expenses. He submitted a receipt of the lawyer’s fee in the amount of EUR 2,595 in support of his claims.
32. The Government contested this claim.
33. Regard being had to the document in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant, EUR 1,000 under this head.
C. Default interest
34. 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. Decides to disjoin the application from applications nos. 27737/07, 18375/09 and 26070/09 ;
2. Declares the rest of the application admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one 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 7 May 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosPeer Lorenzen
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy