SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 39863/02
by Hasan YAVUZ and A. Menaf OSMAN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrR. Türmen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MsD. Jočienė, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 October 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant, Mr Hasan Yavuz, is a Turkish national and the second applicant, Mr A. Menaf Osman, is a Syrian national. They were born in 1955 and 1965 respectively. They are represented before the Court by Mr F. Gümüş, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 March 1993 the applicants were arrested by police officers and were taken into custody on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan).
On 13 April 1993 they were brought before the investigating judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, who ordered the applicants’ detention on remand.
On 4 May 1993 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court, accusing the applicants of being members of the PKK, and of their involvement in separatist activities against the Republic of Turkey.
On 12 March 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court acquitted the first applicant of the offence. The second applicant was convicted and sentenced to death, pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code, which sentence was then commuted to life imprisonment. The whole case was sent for an appeal.
At the time of the introduction of the application, the criminal proceedings against both applicants were still pending before the Court of Cassation.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the length of their detention in police custody.
They further allege under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the military judge on the bench of the Diyabakır State Security Court, as well as on account of the status of the civil judges on the bench. They finally complain under the same head that the criminal proceedings against them were not concluded within a reasonable time.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them exceeded the reasonable time requirement of the Convention, and that they did not have a fair trial on account of the military judge on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court, as well as the status of the civil judges of that court.
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 applicants further allege under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that they were not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.
The Court notes that the applicants were arrested on 13 March 1993 and they were remanded in custody on 13 April 1993. However, the application
was lodged with the Court on 2 October 2002, which is more than six months after the end of their police custody.
Accordingly, this part of the application must be rejected for non-compliance with the six-month time-limit, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaints concerning the length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy