THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 71841/01
by Cahit YETKİNŞEKERCİ
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 December 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
MrG. Ress, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrK. Traja,
MrsA. Gyulumyan, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 14 May 1998,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Cahit Yetkinşekerci, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1951. The applicant was serving a prison sentence in England at the time of the introduction of his application.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 September 1997 British Customs and Excise officers found eighty packages, allegedly containing controlled drugs (diamorphine), in the applicant’s lorry after he had entered the United Kingdom. The packages were seized.
On the same day the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of having been involved in the importation of diamorphine into the United Kingdom.
On 4 September 1997 he was charged with the importation of diamorphine contrary to section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and section 3(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
On 24 March 1998 the applicant was convicted at Canterbury Crown Court of being knowingly concerned in an attempted fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug (diamorphine) contrary to section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. He was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment.
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application for leave to appeal with the Court of Appeal.
On 18 February 2000 the applicant’s representative received a letter from the Registrar of Criminal Appeals which stated:
“I am currently engaged in preparing the summary for use of the court and Counsel. I anticipate this is likely to be concluded in the early March following my return from leave on 1 March. On completion of the summary I anticipate the Listing Officer will be asked to fix a hearing date relatively soon thereafter.”
On 18 January 2001 the applicant’s representative sent a letter to the Court of Appeal requesting that the court make all necessary efforts to expedite the matter.
On 6 March 2001 the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the appeal against conviction, quashed the sentence imposed by Canterbury Crown Court and substituted a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.
On 24 July 2003 a deportation order was made against the applicant under the Immigration Act 1971.
It would appear that in August 2003 it was decided that the applicant should be released on parole on 5 September 2003. The applicant was ordered to be detained under the Immigration Acts 1971 and 1988 pending the taking of the decision on his removal from the United Kingdom.
On an unspecified date the applicant was removed to Turkey.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his conviction was unfair since the courts failed to assess the facts correctly.
The applicant further alleges under the same heading that the criminal proceedings brought against him were not concluded within a reasonable time as there was a delay of almost three years between his original conviction and sentence and the Court of Appeal’s decision on his appeal.
THE LAW
1. The applicant contends under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts wrongly convicted him and therefore he did not have a fair trial.
The Court recalls at the outset its “fourth instance” doctrine (for which, see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29, ECHR 1999-I). Having regard to the materials submitted by the applicant, it notes that the applicant has failed to lay the basis of an arguable claim that any of the procedural guarantees contained in Article 6 were breached in his case.
This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in application of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant alleges that the delay of almost three years between the judgment of Canterbury Crown Court and the decision of the Court of Appeal amounted to a breach of the “reasonable time requirement” laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning[Note1] the length of the criminal proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy