SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 36110/97
by Galip Yalman and others[*]
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 March 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrB. Conforti,
Mr R. Türmen,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29 November 1996 and registered on 15 May 1997,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, whose names appear in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr Selahattin Esmer, a lawyer practising in Ankara.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants were taken into police custody in September 1980 and were subsequently placed in detention on remand. The military court public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against them in the Erzincan Martial Law Court for membership of an illegal organisation. All the applicants were released pending trial on various dates between 1982 and 1984.
On 13 September 1988 the Erzincan Martial Law Court acquitted the applicants of the charges against them.
Subsequently, Galip Yalman on 1 June 1989, Bahattin Sarısoy on 2 March 1989, Osman Çağlayan on 6 March 1989 and Yusuf Çamca on 10 April 1989 brought actions in the Sinop Assize Court against the Treasury pursuant to Law No. 466 and requested compensation for unjustified detention on remand. On 20 October 1989 the court decided to join the applicants’ cases.
On 15 December 1993 the Sinop Assize Court awarded a small amount of compensation to the applicants, who appealed against the judgment. On 31 January 1995 the Court of Cassation, considering the compensation amounts insufficient, quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.
Considering that Galip Yalman had been deprived of his liberty for 1 year and 276 days, Bahattin Sarısoy for 3 years and 283 days, Osman Çağlayan for 1 year and 282 days and Yusuf Çamca for 3 years and 284 days, the Sinop Assize court on 6 June 1995 decided that the applicants were entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damage. With reference to the case-law of the Court of Cassation, and the applicants’ personal, social and financial situation, the court granted 4,000,000 Turkish Liras to Galip Yalman, 8,000,000 Turkish Liras to Bahattin Sarısoy, 5,400,000 Turkish Liras to Osman Çağlayan and 8,100,000 Turkish Liras to Yusuf Çamca by way of non-pecuniary compensation.
On 30 May 1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the judgment of the assize court.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that they were not granted sufficient compensation by the national courts although they were deprived of their liberty for a long period.
2.The applicants allege under Article 6 of the Convention that they did not receive a fair trial before the national courts in that the amount of compensations awarded by the national courts were insufficient.
3.The applicants further maintain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their case was not heard within a reasonable time as required by the Convention. In this respect, they submit that the proceedings in question were commenced in 1989 and terminated in 1996.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain that they were not granted sufficient compensation by the national courts for their excessive length of detention on remand. In this respect, they invoke Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone who has been the victim of an arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”
The Court recalls that under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention the right to compensation for any material or moral damage sustained as a result of a detention is conditioned on a breach of one of the paragraphs of Article 5. Accordingly, the Court cannot consider an applicant’s claim exclusively based on Article 5 § 5 unless a breach of Article 5 §§ 1 to 4 has been established either directly or in substance (No. 7950/77, Dec. 4.3.80, D.R. 19, p. 215).
The Court observes that the applicants were held in detention between 1980 and 1984. However, pursuant to the Turkish Government’s declaration the Court’s competence to examine individual applications extends only to facts and judgments based on events occurring after 28 January 1987. The Court is therefore prevented from proceeding directly to an examination of whether the applicants’ detention on remand was in conformity with Article 5 §§ 1 to 4 of the Convention, as this question is outside its competence ratione temporis.
The Court can leave open the question whether the Turkish courts have in substance acknowledged that there was a violation of any of the provisions in Article 5 §§ 1 to 4 of the Convention, because in any event the Court recalls that the applicants were granted compensation for their deprivation of liberty, and Article 5 § 5 of the Convention does not entitle the applicants to a particular amount of compensation.
In these circumstances, the complaint under Article 5 § 5 is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
2.The applicants allege that they did not receive a fair trial before the national courts in that the amount of compensations awarded by the national courts were insufficient. In this respect, they invoke Article 6 of the Convention, which insofar as relevant reads:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair hearing ...”.
The Court recalls that under Article 19 of the Convention, its sole task is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention. It is not competent to examine applications concerning errors of law or fact allegedly committed by the competent national authorities, which are competent in the first place to interpret and apply domestic law.
In the instant case, the Court notes that the judgments of the Sinop Assize Court and the Court of Cassation were given on the basis of domestic law, the established case-law of the Court of Cassation on non-pecuniary damage, the applicants’ personal, social and financial situation and the particular circumstances of the case. The Court considers that the applicants’ complaints concern the national courts’ evaluation of facts and evidence and interpretation of domestic law. The Court finds no evidence or basis on which to conclude that the courts, in establishing the facts or interpreting the law, acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.
Consequently, there is no appearance of a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
3.The applicants further complains that their case was not heard within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the Convention, which provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time ... .”
The Court 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 54 § 3(b) of the Rules of Procedure, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicants’ complaint about the length of the civil proceedings.
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Erik FriberghC.L. Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applicants
1. Galip Yalman, born in 1962, resides in Sinop.
2. Bahattin Sarısoy, born in 1943, resides in Sinop.
3. Osman Çağlayan, born in 1949, resides in Sinop.
4. Yusuf Çamca, born in 1956, resides in Sinop.
[*] For the list of applicants see appendix.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy