SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 56686/10
Gülsüm DEMİRAL
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 March 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Ksenija Turković, President,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,
Georges Ravarani, judges,
and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 August 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Gülsüm Demiral, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Uşak. She was represented before the Court by Mr S. Çetinkaya, a lawyer practising in Uşak.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 4 October 2006 the applicant’s son was killed by his former wife, E.E. By an indictment dated 5 April 2007, criminal proceedings were initiated against E.E. and four other accused persons for murder before the Uşak Assize Court and the applicant joined the proceedings. On 15 July 2008 the court found E.E. guilty as charged and sentenced her to lifetime imprisonment. Having regard to the fact that there was provocation on the part of the victim and to the good conduct of E.E. during the proceedings, her sentence was reduced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The court further acquitted the remaining accused persons.
4. On 15 April 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment.
COMPLAINT
5. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the fairness and length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
6. The applicant complained about the fairness and length of the criminal proceedings initiated against third parties, following the death of her son. In this connection, she invoked Article 6 of the Convention.
7. The Court reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against third persons or to have such persons convicted (see Perez v. France, [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I). Furthermore, the criminal proceedings instituted against the third parties and to which the applicant joined as a civil party is governed by the new code of Code of Criminal Procedure, which does not allow the request of compensation in such procedures (Beyazgül v. Turkey, no 27849/03, §§ 36 and 39, 22 September 2009).
8. As a result, the Court concludes that the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected 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 24 March 2016.
Abel CamposKsenija Turković
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy