AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 39428/98
by Bünyamin İNAN
against Turkey
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 21 October 1998, the following members being present:
MMJ.-C. GEUS, President
M.A. NOWICKI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
MrsG.H. THUNE
MMF. MARTINEZ
I. CABRAL BARRETO
D. ŠVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIŪNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
A. ARABADJIEV
MsM.-T. SCHOEPFER, 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 18 August 1997 by Bünyamin İNAN against Turkey and registered on 20 January 1998 under file No. 39428/98;
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, who was born in 1955, is a Turkish citizen resident in İstanbul.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 1 December 1980 the applicant, accused of being a member of the illegal organisation called Dev-Yol "Revolutionary Way", was taken into police custody in Ankara. On 2 March 1981 he was placed in detention on remand by order of the Ankara Martial Law Court. On 14 September 1988 he was released pending trial.
On 26 February 1982 the military prosecutor filed the bill of indictment in the Ankara Martial Law Court. In this bill of indictment the applicant was accused of being a member of an illegal organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime and of instigating a number of acts of violence. The prosecution called for the applicant to be sentenced pursuant to Article 146 of the Turkish Criminal Code.
The Ankara Martial Law Court found the applicant guilty for contravening Article 146 para. 3 of the Turkish Criminal Code and sentenced him to fifteen years' of imprisonment and permanently debarred him from employment in the civil service.
Following the applicant's appeal, the case was referred to the Military Court of Cassation.
Pursuant to the law promulgated on 27 December 1993, the case-file was transferred to a non-military court, the Court of Cassation, by act no. 3953.
On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court on the ground that the court had failed to apply the legal provisions relevant to the crime in question.
The case was still pending before the Ankara Assize Court to which it had been remitted, at the time of the application.
COMPLAINTS
1.The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention that his detention on remand was prolonged beyond a reasonable time.
2.The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him were not dealt within a "reasonable time" by an independent and impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
As regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the applicant submits that there are no domestic remedies under Turkish Law concerning the exceeding of the "reasonable time" requirement in proceedings before the courts.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention that his detention on remand was prolonged beyond a reasonable time.
The Commission observes that in the instant case, the applicant was placed in detention on remand on 2 March 1981 and was released on 14 September 1988.
The Commission recalls that according to the Turkish Government's declaration, made on 28 January 1987 pursuant to Article 25 of the Convention, its competence to examine individual petitions began on 28 January 1987. Therefore, only approximately twenty months of the said period fall within the competence of the Commission. However, the applicant was definitively released from detention on remand on 14 September 1988 and the alleged violation was thereby terminated, while the application was introduced more than six months after that date.
It follows that this part of the application is time-barred and must be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 2 and 3 of the Convention.
2.The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him were not dealt within a "reasonable time" by an independent and impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
The Commission considers that it cannot on the basis of the file determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to give notice of these complaints to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Commission,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaints related to the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him and his right to a fair trial by an independent and an impartial tribunal;
unanimously,
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy