SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17925/03
by İbrahim SEVİM
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, president,
András Baka,
Rıza Türmen,
Mindia Ugrekhelidze,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 May 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr İbrahim Sevim, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Batman. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Erkul, a lawyer practising in Batman. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 27 June 1999 and 17 January 2000 respectively, police officers from the Batman and Istanbul Security Directorates carried out operations with a view to apprehending members of the Hezbollah organisation. As a result of an analysis of the compact discs and hard disk of a computer found in a cell used by militants, the applicant was suspected of being a member of the Hezbollah.
On 10 October 2000 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers from the Batman Security Directorate.
On 15 October 2000 the judge at the Batman Magistrates’ Court remanded the applicant in custody.
The public prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant and seven others, accusing them of being members of Hezbollah, pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Law on the Prevention of Terrorism. The first hearing was held on 17 November 2000.
On 7 May 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court noted that the applicant’s police statement was supported by information gathered from the archives of the organisation and other evidence. It accordingly convicted him of the offence as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.
Both parties appealed against the decision. On 17 February 2002, following a hearing, the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the State Security Court in respect of the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he did not have a fair hearing. He maintained that the information which formed the basis of his conviction was obtained from compact discs and a computer hard disk. He alleged, however, that this electronic evidence was susceptible to tampering, as it was kept in the police station.
He alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the submissions of the Chief Public Prosecutor to the Court of Cassation were never served on him, thus depriving him of the opportunity to put forward his counter- arguments.
The applicant also complained under the same Article about the length of his detention in police custody.
Furthermore, the applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he was discriminated against as he was prosecuted in accordance with the provisions of Law on the Prevention of Terrorism.
THE LAW
By a letter dated 1 June 2007, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations, together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply, by 13 July 2007.
By a letter dated 11 September 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 13 July 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s 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 19 September 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.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy