AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 39233/98
by Ayça TAŞKAYA, Ali ÇAMYAR and Birol CÜCE against Turkey
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 9 September 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 19 March 1997 by Ayça TAŞKAYA, Ali ÇAMYAR and Birol CÜCE against Turkey and registered on 8 January 1998 under file No. 39233/98;
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 applicants, born in 1977, 1969 and 1975 respectively, are Turkish citizens. The first applicant is in prison in Uşak and the second and the third applicants are in Bergama prison in İzmir. They are represented before the Commission by Mrs Zeynep Sedef Özdoğan, a lawyer practising in İzmir.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 7 September 1996 policemen from the Anti-terrorist branch of the İzmir Security Directorate arrested the applicants. The policemen suspected that the applicants were members of an illegal organisation, the TİKB (Turkish Revolutionary Communists Union).
On 19 September 1996 the İzmir State Security Court ordered the applicants to be detained on remand.
On 22 October 1996 the Public prosecutor attached to the İzmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants. He accused them of being members of an illegal terrorist organisation, the TİKB, contrary to Article 168 para. 2 of the Turkish Penal Code, which is defined as a terrorist crime by Article 5 of Law No. 3713.
The case is still pending before the İzmir State Security Court.
COMPLAINTS
1.The applicants complain that they were kept in police custody for thirteen days without being brought before a judge. They invoke Article 5 paras. 1 and 3 of the Convention.
2. The applicants also complain that they were not informed promptly of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. They contend that they were not allowed to have legal assistance during the police custody. They invoke Article 6 para. 3 (a) and (c) of the Convention.
THE LAW
1.The applicants complain that they were kept in police custody for thirteen days without being brought before a judge. They invoke Article 5 paras. 1 and 3 of the Convention.
Article 5 paras. 1 and 3 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:
"1.Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
3.Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1.c of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial;..."
The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.
2. The applicants also complain that they were not informed promptly of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. They contend that they were not allowed to have legal asssitance during the police custody. They invoke Article 6 para. 3 (a) and (c) of the Convention which provides as follows:
"3.Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
a. to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
...
c. to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;..."
The Commission notes that the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants are still pending before the İzmir State Security Court.
However, according to its established case-law, the Commission deems it necessary to take into consideration the entire criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in order to decide whether they conform to the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention
(e.g. Nos. 23878/94, 23879/94, 23880/94, 23881/94, 23882/94, 23883/94, Dec. 25.5.95, D.R. 81-B, p. 94). The Commission therefore notes that as the applicants have not yet been convicted they still have at their disposal the possibility of submitting their complaints before the domestic courts. In this regard, the applicants' complaints under Article 6 appear to be premature. Besides, the Commission recalls that, after the final ruling is given in domestic law, the applicants may re-submit their complaints to the Commission if they still consider themselves victims of the alleged violations.
It follows that this part of the application should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicants' complaint that they were kept in police custody for thirteen days without being brought before a judge;
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