THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 77845/01
by Abdullah DERECİ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 April 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrG. Ress, President,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrR. Türmen,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrH.S. Greve, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 April 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Abdullah Dereci, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Hatay. He is represented before the Court by Mr E. Kanar and Ms Y. Başara, lawyers practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 10 February 1994 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of Istanbul Security Directorate and was held in custody for fourteen days.
On 24 February 1994 the applicant was brought before a single judge of the Istanbul State Security Court who ordered his detention on remand.
On 17 May 1994 the Chief Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court accusing the applicant, inter alia, of membership of the illegal armed organisation of TKEP/L (Turkey Communist Labour Party/Leninist) and of involvement in activities that undermined the constitutional order of the State. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
Throughout the criminal proceedings, either on its own motion or at the applicant's request, at the end of every hearing, the State Security Court examined and ordered the applicant's continued detention. The court relied on “the nature of the offences charged and the state of the evidence” when ordering the applicant's further detention.
On 27 January 1997 the court decided to join the case with another case pending before another court, on the ground that the cases were related to one another in a legal sense. In the other case, the applicant was also accused of being member of the same organisation and the activities he was allegedly involved in were partly the same.
On 11 April 1997 the Court of Cassation decided to disjoin the cases.
The criminal proceedings before the court began again on 21 July 1997.
The applicant continued to request his release pending trial during the hearings conducted. His requests were dismissed.
On 27 November 2000 the applicant appealed to another court against the decision of his further detention. On 28 November 2000 the court dismissed the applicant's request on similar grounds, namely “the content of the case file and the state of the evidence”.
On 4 June 2001 the State Security Court decided to release the applicant stating that “the nature of the offences attributed to the applicant might change”.
The case is still pending before the State Security Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that he was held in custody for an excessive length of time without being brought before a judge and that his detention on remand exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement.
The applicant further complains that the criminal proceedings brought against him were not concluded within a “reasonable time” as required by the Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 that he was kept in custody for fourteen days without being brought before a judge.
In the instant case the applicant's custody ended on 24 February 1994 whereas the application was brought before the Court on 22 November 2001 that is more than six months after the detention complained of.
The Court therefore concludes that this part of the application has been lodged out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant complains that the length of his detention on remand exceeded the reasonable time requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.
3. The applicant alleges that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him contravened the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaints concerning the length of the detention on remand and the length of the criminal proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy