SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38056/03
by Bülent KUDİŞ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Rıza Türmen,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 November 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Bülent Kudiş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr K.T. Sürek, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. The arrest and detention of the applicant
In connection with an investigation into the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation, the Ümraniye District Gendarme Command received intelligence reports that the applicant had been involved in several bomb attacks.
On 6 March 1999 gendarme officers from the Ümraniye District Gendarme Command arrested the applicant. The applicant was taken to the District Gendarme Station. During his interrogation, the applicant was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment in order to extract confessions that he had been involved in two bomb attacks, namely the bombing of the Hüseyin Avni Sipahi Primary School and the building of the Democratic Left Party in Sultançifliği. The applicant was subsequently taken to the scene of the incidents to describe the details of the bomb attacks. The on‑site inspections were filmed by the gendarmes.
On 12 March 1999 the applicant was examined by a doctor. In his report, the doctor noted that the applicant suffered from diabetes. It was also observed that the applicant had 3 or 4 scab-covered lesions, measuring 1 cm, on his legs. It was concluded that that these wounds could be the result of diabetes.
The same day the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge. Before the public prosecutor, the applicant denied the charges brought against him. He further stated that he had been ill‑treated during his interrogation by the gendarmes. The applicant repeated the same statement before the investigating judge, who ordered his detention on remand.
2. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 19 March 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant, charging him with membership of the PKK and carrying out bomb attacks in public places. He brought charges against the applicant under Articles 168 § 2 and 264 of the Criminal Code.
On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge.
On 11 December 2001 the court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment for membership of an illegal organisation, and to eleven years, one month and ten days’ imprisonment for carrying out bomb attacks.
On 12 December 2001 the applicant appealed.
On 1 October 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the State Security Court because of a lack of adequate investigation, and the case was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court.
On 7 May 2004 State Security Courts were abolished following a constitutional amendment and the applicant’s case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.
It appears from the Government’s observations that on 21 November 2006 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged. No information has been given as regards the sentence imposed on him.
3. The investigation into the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment
On an unspecified date, the Ümraniye public prosecutor commenced an investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.
On 9 October 2003 the public prosecutor delivered a decision of non‑prosecution against the gendarme officers for lack of evidence.
On 23 December 2004 the applicant appealed.
On 18 January 2005 the Kadıköy Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his detention in custody in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
The applicant contended under Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty, that he had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest and that he had been held in custody for an excessive length of time without being brought before a judge.
He also alleged that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial within a reasonable time, in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The Court communicated the present case to the Government and, by a letter dated 13 June 2007, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative for comment by 25 July 2007.
By letter dated 5 October 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 25 July 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The representative’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 16 October 2007. However, no response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Françoise Elens-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy