AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 25126/94
by Mehmet Erdagöz
against Turkey
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 9 April 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
Mr. R. NICOLINI
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 17 August 1994 by
Mehmet Erdagöz against Turkey and registered on 13 September 1994 under
file No. 25126/94;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born
in 1955 and resides in Kars.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may
be summarised as follows.
At about 2 p.m. on 16 September 1992 the applicant applied to the
police station in Adana and he complained that his shop's windows were
broken by an attack. He also indicated the identity of the persons whom
he suspected of being responsible for the attack. The policemen wanted
the applicant to bring evidence or witness. The applicant left the
police station and after two hours he returned with two bullets which
he claimed to have found in his shop. A police team went to the shop
to check the applicant's allegations. The policemen drew up a report.
They found no evidence of shots having been fired into the applicant's
shop and the same day the applicant was placed in custody on account
of producing false evidence.
On 17 September 1992 the applicant was released at an unspecified
time.
On 17 September 1992 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint
against the police officers E.T. and S.K. for false imprisonment and
defamation.
On 6 December 1993 the Public Prosecutor of Adana made an order
discontinuing the proceedings against the police officers in respect
of the complaint lodged by the applicant. The Public Prosecutor found
that, on the basis of the applicant's criminal record and the suspicion
that he had produced false evidence, he had been detained for twenty
four hours in the police station in order to be questioned for the
purposes of the investigation of the case.
On 18 february 1994 the applicant appealed to the President of
the Assize Court against the order discontinuing the proceedings.
On 7 April 1994 the President of the Tarsus Assize Court (Adana)
dismissed the applicant's appeal.
On 13 April 1994 the applicant requested a written order from the
Minister of Justice in order to bring an appeal before the Court of
Cassation.
On 4 July 1994 the applicant's request was rejected by the
Minister of Justice.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains of the violations of the Articles 3 and
5 of the Convention.
As to Article 3, the applicant complains that he was subjected
to ill-treatment during police custody. In particular, he alleges that
he was tortured by the policemen who had hosed him with compressed
water and had not allowed him to sleep.
As to Article 5, the applicant complains that he was deprived of
his liberty due to the police custody which lasted 48 hours.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that he was deprived of his liberty and
subjected to ill-treatment during police custody which lasted 48 hours.
However, the Commission recalls that, by virtue of Article 27
para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, the Commission may not
deal with an application if it contains "substantially the same facts
and complaints" as an application previously examined by it (No.
8206/78, Dec. 10.7.81, D.R. 25, p. 150).
The Commission notes that the applicant in a previous application
(No. 21890/93) has presented substantially the same facts and
complaints, supported moreover by copies of same decisions. This
application is currently pending before the Court.
It follows that this application must be rejected in accordance
with Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy