SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 47239/08
Hasan COŞAR
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 September 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Hasan Coşar, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1962. He was represented before the Court by Mr F.N. Ertekin and Mr K. Öztürk, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
2. On 21 September 2006 the applicant was arrested by police officers on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
3. On 22 September 2006 the applicant was brought before the judge at the Ankara Assize Court, who placed him in pre-trial detention. On the same day, the Ankara Assize Court made a decision on the restriction of access to the investigation file according to Article 153 § 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Law no. 5271. The Ankara Assize Court held that the restriction of access to the investigation file was necessary to ensure confidentiality and security of the investigation which was related to an illegal organisation.
4. On 20 March 2007 the public prosecutor at the Ankara Assize Court issued an indictment charging the applicant with involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation.
5. The restriction of access to the investigation file continued until the indictment was accepted by the trial court. On 2 April 2007, the applicant’s representative was able to access and take copies from the investigation file.
6. On 30 May 2007 the Ankara Assize Court held its first hearing when the applicant appeared before a judge for the second time after his pre‑trial detention was ordered by the investigating judge on 22 September 2006.
7. During the proceedings, the Ankara Assize Court held hearings on 30 May 2007, 11 July 2007, 29 August 2007, 31 October 2007, 30 January 2008, 19 March 2008, 14 May 2008, 16 July 2008, 3 September 2008 and 8 October 2008. At those hearings the applicant made his pleadings orally before the trial court and requested to be released pending trial. The Ankara Assize Court rejected these requests due to reasonable grounds of suspicion established against the applicant, the nature of the criminal charges and the state of the evidence in the case-file.
8. On 4 September 2007, 30 January 2008, 4 April 2008, 20 May 2008 and 16 July 2008, the applicant objected to the trial court’s rejections of his requests to be released. On 19 September 2007, 4 December 2007, 29 February 2008, 9 April 2008, 24 June 2008 and 15 August 2008 respectively, the Istanbul Assize Court dismissed the objections lodged by the applicant without holding an oral hearing and based on the public prosecutor’s written opinions, which were not communicated to the applicant or to his representative.
9. At its hearing dated 8 October 2008, the Ankara Assize Court decided to release the applicant on conditional bail.
10. According to the information in the case file, on 18 March 2010, the Ankara Assize Court convicted the applicant of membership of a terrorist organisation and of propaganda in support of that organisation. The Ankara Assize Court sentenced him to ten years and ten months’ imprisonment.
COMPLAINTS
11. In his second application form, dated 10 March 2009, the applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the review procedure regarding his continued pre-trial detention.
THE LAW
A. Disjoinder of the applications
12. On 16 Mach 2010 the Court decided to join the present application with three other applications, Demirel and Kahraman v. Turkey (no. 4446/08); Ayboğa and others v. Turkey (no. 35302/08); and Deniz Seki v. Turkey (no. 44695/09) in view of the similar complaints, declared the applications partially admissible and communicated them to the Government. However, the Court now considers that it is necessary to separate them. Accordingly, it decides to disjoin the present application from the other ones.
B. Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
13. Under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant complained that there had been no effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. In this connection, he complained that during the review proceedings, which had been decided on the basis of the case-file, the public prosecutor’s opinion had not been communicated to him or to his lawyer. He further maintained that he was put in an unfavorable situation on account of the restriction of access to the investigation file for six months.
14. The Government asked the Court to reject the application on two counts. By referring to the case of Stephens v. Malta (no. 1) (no. 11956/07, § 102, 21 April 2009), they firstly argued that the case was incompatible ratione materiae. They also stated that the case should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as the applicant had never raised his allegations before the domestic courts.
15. However, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court finds it unnecessary to determine these issues, since the application is in any case inadmissible for the reasons set out below.
16. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court may only deal with a matter “within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken”. The running of the six‑month time-limit is, as a general rule, interrupted by the first letter from the applicant indicating an intention to lodge an application and giving some indication of the nature of the complaints made. As regards complaints not included in the initial application, the running of the six‑month time-limit is not interrupted until the date when the complaint is first submitted to the Court (see Allan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 48539/99, 28 August 2001, and Dağlı v. Turkey, no. 28888/02, §§ 36‑39, 27 November 2007).
17. In the present case, the Court notes that in the initial application form, which was submitted on 25 September 2008, the applicant solely complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, about the length of his pre-trial detention. It is observed that this complaint was subsequently declared inadmissible by a partial decision, dated 16 March 2010.
18. In the meantime, on 10 March 2009 the applicant submitted a second application form, which included further new complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. The Court notes that these complaints were not mentioned in any communication prior to 10 March 2009. In this connection, the Court notes that the applicant’s objections against his continued detention had been dismissed by the domestic courts on the basis of the case-file, respectively on 19 September 2007, 4 December 2007, 29 February 2008, 9 April 2008, 24 June 2008 and 15 August 2008. As the complaint raised under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention was submitted to the Court in the second application form dated 10 March 2009, this complaint is introduced out of the six-month time-limit.
19. Consequently, the Court concludes that the application should be rejected as being out of time, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Disjoins the application from the others to which it was joined;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 20 October 2016.
Hasan BakırcıNebojša Vučinić
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy