SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 43699/05
by Feridun İPEKYÜZ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 February 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 6 November 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Feridun İpekyüz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Diyarbakır. He is represented before the Court by Mr H. Gümüş, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakir.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. Administrative proceedings
In 1997 the applicant successfully passed the University entrance examinations and was enrolled at the Faculty of Education at Dicle University. On 4 February 2000, at the request of the Higher Education Council's Centre for Selection, a disciplinary investigation was instigated against the applicant for cheating in the University entrance examinations.
On 4 October 2001 the applicant was informed by the Dean of the University that his admission to the University had been annulled. In this connection, the Dean noted that it had been established that the applicant had cheated, had sought to deceive the University administration and that, as a result, he had never obtained the status of a student.
On 18 April 2002 the applicant brought an action in the Diyarbakır Administrative Court, seeking the annulment of the decision of the University Rectorate.
On 31 December 2002 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request on the ground, inter alia, that, since the disciplinary investigation had established that another person had sat the University entrance exam in place of him, he had not acquired the right to be a student at the University and, therefore, the decision of the University was lawful. On 16 February 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. This decision was served on the applicant's legal representative on 13 April 2004. The applicant maintained, however, that he had not learned of that decision until 3 October 2005.
In the meantime, the applicant was drafted into the army. From 5 February 2004 to 7 May 2005 he served his compulsory military service.
B. Criminal proceedings
Upon receipt of information that a group of university students had been contacting candidates for the 1999 University entrance examinations and offering to sit them in place of the candidates in exchange for money, the police opened an investigation.
By an indictment, dated 21 July 1999, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor's office accused the applicant and a number of others of, inter alia, fraud.
On 20 February 2003 the court decided to join these proceedings to another case pending before it.
On 11 September 2006 the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquitted the applicant and some of the other suspects of the charges against them on the ground, inter alia, that the charges against them constituted “fraud on special papers” (özel evrakta sahtecilik), but that they had been halted at the preparatory stage, prior to the offence being committed. On 15 October 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
C. Subsequent developments
On 28 January 2009 the applicant brought an action with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court, seeking the annulment of the decision of the University Rectorate not to readmit him as a student despite his acquittal. These proceedings are still pending.
COMPLAINTS
In his application form to the Court, the applicant raised a number of complaints under Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 on the grounds that the administrative proceedings had not awaited the outcome of the criminal proceedings, that the decision of the administrative courts not to stay the execution of the University's decision had breached his right to a fair trial and that the length of the proceedings against him had been excessive. He alleged that, as a result of these factors, he and his family had suffered financial and emotional problems, that he had been drafted into the army before the outcome of the proceedings pending against him was known, preventing him from effectively participating in those proceedings, and that he had had to serve a longer period of military service than a university graduate. Finally, the applicant maintained that, even if he had been convicted of fraud, his right to education had been breached by the outcome of the administrative proceedings because he had been a successful student.
In his letter, dated 30 January 2009, the applicant further complained that he had been denied access to a lawyer at the preliminary stages of the criminal proceedings.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint 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. The applicant maintained under Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No.1 that he had been drafted into the army before the outcome of the proceedings pending against him was known, preventing him from effectively participating in those proceedings, that he had had to serve a longer period of military service than a university graduate, that the administrative proceedings had not awaited the outcome of the criminal proceedings, that the decision of the administrative courts not to stay the execution of the University's decision had breached his right to a fair trial and that the length of the proceedings against him had been excessive, as a result of which the applicant and his family had suffered financial and emotional problems. In addition, the applicant alleged that, even if he had been convicted of fraud, his right to education had been breached because he had been a successful student and, moreover, he had been denied access to a lawyer at the preliminary stages of the criminal proceedings.
In the light of all the materials in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant's above complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that they must be rejected as being manifestly ill‑founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings initiated against him;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy