SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 38832/09 and 53027/09
Ahmet YILDIZ against Turkey
and Mahmut ERDEM against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 December 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, President,
Paul Lemmens,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 6 July 2009 and 14 September 2009 respectively,
Having regard to the decisions of 4 and 6 April 2017,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant in the first case, Mr Ahmet Yıldız, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Adana. The applicant in the second case, Mr Mahmut Erdem, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Adana. Before the Court, both applicants were represented by Mr K. Derin, a lawyer practicing in Adana. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent,
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Application no. 38832/09
3. On 8 January 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation.
4. On 9 January 2002 the applicant was placed in detention on remand.
5. Subsequently, the criminal proceedings against the applicant commenced before the Adana State Security Court.
6. On 19 April 2002 the applicant was released from detention on remand.
7. On 22 May 2003 the first-instance court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him.
8. On 18 August 2003 the applicant lodged a claim with the Adana Assize Court requesting compensation pursuant to Law no. 466 for his detention.
9. On 28 January 2004 the applicant attended the hearing held before the Adana Assize Court.
10. On 28 April 2006 the applicant’s representative attended the hearing before the Adana Assize Court and submitted the applicant’s final claim to the court.
11. On 28 April 2006 the Assize Court partially accepted the applicant’s claim and granted him 1,500 Turkish liras (TRY) in respect of his non‑pecuniary damage. The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claims.
12. On 12 March 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
2. Application no. 53027/09
13. On 8 January 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation.
14. On 9 January 2002 the applicant was placed in detention on remand.
15. Subsequently, the criminal proceedings against the applicant commenced before the Adana State Security Court.
16. On 22 March 2002 the applicant was released from detention on remand.
17. On 22 May 2003 the first-instance court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him.
18. On 18 August 2003 the applicant lodged a claim with the Adana Assize Court requesting compensation pursuant to Law No. 466 on the payment of compensation to prison to persons unlawfully arrested or detained.
19. On 11 December 2003 the applicant and his representative attended the hearing before the Adana Assize Court.
20. On 9 September 2004, 14 October 2004, 25 November 2004, and 22 September 2005 the applicant’s representative attended the hearings held before the assize court.
21. On 29 December 2005 the Assize Court partially accepted the applicant’s claim and granted him 1,500 Turkish liras (TRY) in respect of his non‑pecuniary damage as well as TRY 321 in respect of the pecuniary damage. The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claims.
22. On 5 March 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. This decision was deposited with the registry of the first-instance court on 13 April 2009.
COMPLAINT
23. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants maintained that their right to a fair and public hearing was breached as they were never afforded a public hearing in the determination of their compensation claims.
THE LAW
24. The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background.
25. The applicants argued that they were never afforded an oral hearing in the determination of their compensation claims.
26. The Government denied the allegations. They stated that the applicants and/or their lawyer had attended the hearings held before the Adana Assize Court. In this respect, they submitted the minutes of the relevant court hearings, indicating that the applicants and/or their representative were present during the hearings.
27. The Court observes from the documents submitted by the Government that the applicants and their representative had participated in several hearings held before the assize courts which determined their compensation claims.
28. Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the applicants’ allegations under this head should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 January 2018.
Hasan BakırcıNebojša Vučinić
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy