SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18104/10
Taner ÇETİN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 July 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Valeriu Griţco, President,
Arnfinn Bårdsen,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 March 2010,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Taner Çetin, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1983 and lives in İzmir. He was represented before the Court by Ms Y. Kavak Kılınç, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On 3 December 2009 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of theft.
5. On 4 December 2009 the applicant was brought before the İzmir Magistrates’ Court who placed him in detention on remand, taking into consideration the nature of the offence and the state of evidence.
6. On 7 December 2009 the applicant filed an objection against the detention order. On 8 December 2009 the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance dismissed the objection filed against the detention order without holding an oral hearing given that there was no change of the state of the evidence.
7. On 11 December 2009 the İzmir public prosecutor filed an indictment charging the applicant with qualified theft.
8. On 14 December 2009, the applicant filed a petition requesting his release.
9. On 21 December 2009 the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance, as a trial court, dismissed the applicant’s request for release and ordered the continuation of his detention, without holding an oral hearing.
10. On 19 January 2010 the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance held a hearing, in which both the applicant and his lawyer were present. At the end of that hearing, the court ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention.
11. On 17 February 2010 the applicant was released pending trial.
12. On 14 March 2010 the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to nine months’ imprisonment. As no appeal was lodged, the judgment became final.Relevant domestic law and practice
13. A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in Altınok v.Turkey (no. 31610/08, §§ 28-32, 29 November 2011).
COMPLAINTS
14. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that his right to have an effective remedy was breached since he was not able to appear before the court when his pre-trial detention was reviewed.
THE LAW
15. Relying on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant complained about not being able to appear before the court when his pre-trial detention was reviewed.
16. The Government contested that argument.
17. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant was placed in detention on remand on 4 December 2009. The applicant filed an objection against the detention order before the appeal court which rejected the applicant’s objection on 8 December 2009. Subsequently, the trial court dismissed the applicant’s request for release on 21 December 2008. The Court notes that both the decisions, concerning the dismissal of the applicant’s requests, were given without holding an oral hearing. Nevertheless, the applicant had appeared before İzmir Magistrate’s Court four days before his objection was examined by the appeal court and seventeen days before his release request was examined by the trial court. In these circumstances, the Court does not consider that a further oral hearing was required for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 (see Altınok v. Turkey, no. 31610/08, §§ 54-55, 29 November 2011; Çelik v. Turkey, no. 6670/10, §§ 20-22, 17 March 2015; and Ceviz v. Turkey, no. 8140/08, § 49, 17 July 2012).
18. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
19. Lastly, the Court notes that another complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, concerning the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion, had initially been communicated to the Government.
20. The Government argued that the applicant had not complained about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion.
21. After having examined the case file, the Court notes that no complaint concerning the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion had been raised by the applicant in his application form or in his observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. It therefore allows the Government’s objection and dismisses this complaint as inadmissible, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 17 September 2020.
Hasan BakırcıValeriu Griţco
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy