SECOND SECTION
Application no. 15185/05
İzzet ÇELİK
against Turkey
lodged on 7 October 2003
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr İzzet Çelik, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Batman. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Filorinalı and Mrs F. Köstak, lawyers practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 25 September 1998 the applicant was arrested by police officers and taken into custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation.
On 30 September 1998 police officers at the Istanbul Security Directorate took a statement from the applicant in the absence of a lawyer. He confessed that he was a member of the organisation and gave information about certain activities in which he had participated.
On 2 October 1998 a statement was taken from the applicant by the Istanbul public prosecutor. He confirmed the statement he had made to the police.
On the same day, the applicant was questioned by the investigating judge in the absence of a lawyer. He confirmed the statement he had made to the public prosecutor, but withdrew the one he had made to the police. The applicant alleged that he had given the statements under duress. The investigating judge ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
On 7 October 1998 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, charging the applicant under Article 125 of the former Turkish Criminal Code with being a member of an illegal organisation and being involved in separatist activities against the Republic of Turkey.
On 2 September 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment, pursuant to Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. The first-instance court based its decision on several items of evidence, such as the applicant’s statements to the police, public prosecutor and the investigating judge, documents relating to the organisation which had been found and seized in the course of the police operations, and the statements of some co-defendants.
On 7 April 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. On 29 May 2003 that decision was deposited with the registry of the Istanbul State Security Court.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his pre-trial detention was excessively lengthy. He further argues under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that Turkish law does not afford any effective remedy by which the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention could be decided.
Under Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant contends that he was denied access to a lawyer during the preliminary investigation. He further alleges under this provision that the length of the criminal proceedings against him exceeded the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant further alleges that he was never given an opportunity to reply to the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor submitted to the Court of Cassation on the merits of his appeal. He also complains of the lack of impartiality and independence of the State Security Courts. The applicant further complains of the breach of his right to be presumed innocent on account of the length of pre-trial detention.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant further contends in general that the Assize Court failed to examine several witnesses who were allegedly in his favour.
QUESTIONS
1. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant receive a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, Ceylan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 68953/01, 30 August 2005)?
3. Was the principle of equality of arms respected in the criminal proceedings against the applicant in so far as he complains about the non-communication to him of the written observations of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation?
4. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during the preliminary investigation stage (see, Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 45-63, 27 November 2008)?
The Government are requested to submit a copy of the reasoned decision of 2 September 2002 given by the Istanbul State Security Court.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy