Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 131
June 2010
Çelikkaya v. Turkey (dec.) - 34026/03
Decision 1.6.2010 [Section II]
Article 14
Discrimination
Refusal to release a convicted prisoner on licence: inadmissible
Facts – The applicant had a number of convictions for which he received prison sentences. Between 1987 and 1996, with a view to resolving the problem of the extreme length of the sentences he was required to serve (87 years out of a total term of more than 190 years were not suspended), orders were made for his sentences to run concurrently and a ceiling was set on the maximum term. In a separate development, as a multiple repeat offender he was kept in prison after the enactment of an amnesty law (Law no. 4616).
Law – Article 14 taken together with Article 5 § 1 (a): the applicant had been given a prison sentence in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, and by a competent court, within the meaning of Article 5§ 1 (a), but had challenged the prosecutor’s calculation of the sentence reduction under Law no. 4616. Article 5§ 1 (a) did not guarantee, as such, any right for a convicted person to benefit from an amnesty law or to obtain early release on a final or conditional basis. The fact that the courts concerned had agreed with the arguments of the public prosecutor did not render the applicant’s detention arbitrary in the light of Article 5§ 1 (a). It was their task in the first place to interpret and apply domestic law and it was not for the Court to substitute itself for them in assessing the facts that led them to one decision rather than another. However, the Court could not but agree with the means of calculation adopted in the present case, as it did not give rise to any confusion and was consistent with the rules in force at the material time. As regards the discriminatory nature of the applicant’s detention after the entry into force of Law no. 4616, it was difficult to distinguish any factual circumstances that differed in essence from those of two prisoners who had been released on licence. Thus the Court was not convinced that there had been no discrimination. However, it could not speculate further on that point because, under Turkish law on the enforcement of sentences, measures or errors, even when in a prisoner’s favour, did not confer any acquired right and could be corrected by the authorities at any time. Therefore the situations of the two prisoners did not concern the exercise of any acquired rights for the purposes of Article 5§ 1 (a) and thus had no comparative value in relation to the applicant’s own situation. If there had been any inequality it was an apparent de facto inequality on which the applicant could not legitimately rely under Article 14.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy