SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38360/09
by Necati ÇELEBİOĞLU
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Giorgio Malinverni,
Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 June 2009,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 28 January 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Necati Çelebioğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr A.G. Yenidünya, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 October 2001 the Çanakkale public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Çanakkale Assize Court, accusing the applicant of embezzlement and forgery in official documents.
On 26 April 2007 the Çanakkale Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years and two months’ imprisonment.
On 3 December 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
On 26 January 2009 the final decision was deposited with the first-instance court’s registry.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had lasted unreasonably long.
Relying upon Article 6 §§ 1 and 3, the applicant complained about the Assize Court’s evaluation of evidence. In this respect, he maintained that the court had failed to evaluate his arguments and had violated the principle of equality of arms.
Finally, the applicant submitted under Article 6 § 2 that his presumption of innocence had been breached due to the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
1. As to the complaint about the length of proceedings
The applicant complained about the length of criminal proceedings instigated against him. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 28 January 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“Je déclare que le Gouvernement de la République de Turquie offre de verser au requérant, M. Necati Çelebioğlu, la somme de 3 500 (trois mille cinq cents) euros, couvrant tout préjudice matériel et moral ainsi que 500 (cinq cents) euros, couvrant l’ensemble des frais et dépens, plus tout montant pouvant être dû à titre d’impôt par le requérant, sommes qu’il considère comme appropriées à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour.
Cette somme sera convertie en livres turques au taux applicable à la date du paiement, et exemptes de toute taxe éventuellement applicable. Elle sera payée dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision de la Cour rendue conformément à l’article 37 § 1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. A défaut de règlement dans ledit délai, le Gouvernement s’engage à verser, à compter de l’expiration de celui-ci et jusqu’au règlement effectif de la somme en question, un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage. Ce versement vaudra règlement définitif de l’affaire.
Le Gouvernement considère que la procédure interne engagée par la partie requérante a connu une durée excessive au sens de la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour (Daneshpayeh c. Turquie, nº 1086/04, 16 juillet 2009). Il invite respectueusement la Cour à dire qu’il ne se justifie plus de poursuivre l’examen de la requête et à la rayer du rôle conformément à l’article 37 de la Convention. ”
The applicant did not submit any response to the declaration of the Government.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003‑VI; also WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03; Stark and Others v. Finland (striking out), no. 39559/02, § 23, 9 October 2007; Silva Marrafa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 56936/08, 25 May 2010; Karal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44655/09, 29 March 2011; and Barış İnan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 20315/10, 24 May 2011).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007; and Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 28-29, 16 July 2009).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the case out of the list.
2. As to the other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention
Relying upon Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant argued that the Çanakkale Assize Court had failed to properly evaluate his arguments and had violated the principle of equality of arms. The Court considers that the complaint must be evaluated from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 alone.
The Court reiterates that it is not a court of fourth instance and it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001‑II). It also reiterates that it is not its task to review the assessment of evidence by a national court, unless it is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000). In the present case, there is no appearance of arbitrariness in the domestic court’s evaluation of evidence and national law.
Moreover, in so far as the applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 about the alleged breach of his right to presumption of innocence, the Court finds that this complaint directly concerns the complaint under Article 6 § 1 about the excessive length of the proceedings and does not raise any separate issue under the Convention.
Accordingly, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints under Article 6 of the Convention are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, in so far as it concerns the complaint about the length of the proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosDavid Thór Björgvinsson Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy