Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 173
April 2014
Gürdeniz v. Turkey (dec.) - 59715/10
Decision 18.3.2014 [Section II]
Article 35
Article 35-2
Same as matter submitted to other procedure
Complaints previously examined by United Nations Working Party on Arbitrary Detention: inadmissible
Facts – In 2010 the public prosecutor’s office launched a criminal investigation against several members of a criminal organisation called Balyoz who were suspected of having planned a military coup in 2002 and 2003 designed to overthrow the elected government by force. On 6 July 2010 the public prosecutor’s office brought criminal proceedings against a number of persons, including the applicant. On 11 February 2011 the Assize Court ordered the applicant to be placed in detention. None of his applications for release was successful. On 21 September 2012 he was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. His appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed.
On 1 May 2013 the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (“the Working Group”) issued its opinion regarding 250 persons – including the applicant – placed in pre-trial detention in the context of the Balyoz case.
Law – Article 35 § 2: The Court had already examined the procedure before the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and concluded that it was indeed a “procedure of international investigation or settlement” within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 b) of the Convention*.
In the present case the Working Group had given an opinion on the question whether the applicant’s detention was arbitrary and on the length of his pre-trial detention, having regard to many factors, including mainly the evidence contained in the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant. It had concluded that the deprivation of liberty of the 250 accused detained in the Balyoz case, including the applicant, had been arbitrary as contrary to Articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In reaching that conclusion, it had examined the applicant’s case as part of its overall analysis of the right to a fair trial. The matter brought to the Working Group’s attention had thus encompassed the complaints based on Article 5 of the Convention which the applicant had submitted to the Court. Accordingly, having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court held that the facts, parties and complaints were identical.
Accordingly, the complaints based on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention submitted to the Court were essentially the same as those that had resulted in the above-mentioned opinion of the Working Group.
Conclusion: inadmissible (complaints essentially the same).
The Court also declared inadmissible, by a majority, the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
* See Peraldi v. France, 2096/05, 7 April 2009, Information Note 118.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy