SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 44027/09
by Mehmet HASDEMİR
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 August 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mehmet Hasdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and is currently detained in İzmit F-type prison. He is represented before the Court by Ms N. Hasdemir, a lawyer practising in Zonguldak.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows;
On 6 May 2000 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of a criminal profit-making organisation and carrying out illegal activities on its behalf.
Without providing any medical report or evidence, the applicant claimed that he had been coerced into making self-incriminating statements whilst in police custody.
On 8 May 2000 the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
On an unspecified date a bill of indictment was filed against the applicant and four other persons with the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing them of establishing a criminal profit-making organisation and of being involved in incidents of murder, extortion and fraud.
On 30 January 2003 the first-instance court acquitted the applicant and the other accused of the former charge on the ground that the mental elements of the crime had not been established. It followed that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the other charges brought against them.
On 10 June 2004 the eighth Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation declared its lack of jurisdiction and sent the file to the sixth Criminal Chamber of the same court.
On 20 December 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court, noting that the latter had erroneously acquitted the applicant and his co-accused.
Subsequently, the case was remitted to the first-instance court.
Following the abolition of the State Security Courts by Law no. 5190, the Istanbul Assize Court resumed the criminal proceedings where, according to the information in the case file, they are currently still pending.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention and the alleged lack of an enforceable right to compensation.
Without relying on any Article of the Convention, the applicant alleged that the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonably lengthy.
The applicant complained that he was denied a fair trial as the first‑instance court based its judgment on self-incriminating statements he had made in police custody under coercion.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 that his pre-trial detention had exceeded the reasonable time requirement and that he had been denied a right to compensation in this regard. The applicant further alleged that the criminal proceedings against him, which had been pending before the first‑instance court, were not concluded within a reasonable time.
The Court considers that the applicant’s complaint regarding the length of the criminal proceedings should be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It further considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. Without relying on any Article of the Convention, the applicant alleged that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair because the court had accepted as evidence self-incriminating statements he had made in police custody under coercion.
The Court considers that this complaint should also be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It further notes that according to the information in the case file, the criminal proceedings against the applicant are currently pending before the first-instance court. The complaint concerning the alleged unfairness of the trial is, therefore, premature and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, for example, Koç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36686/07, 26 February 2008).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning his right to be released pending trial, to have a compensatory remedy for the alleged breach of Article 5 and to be tried within a reasonable time;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy