British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
ATICI (no. 2) v. TURKEY - 31540/02 [2007] ECHR 266 (12 April 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/266.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 266
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF ATICI (no. 2) v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 31540/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12
April 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Atıcı (no. 2) v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr B.M. Zupančič,
President,
Mr C. Bîrsan,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mrs A.
Gyulumyan,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mr David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Mrs I. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and
Mr S. Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 March 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 31540/02) against the
Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Turkish national, Mr Hüseyin
Atıcı (“the applicant”), on 25 July 2002.
The
applicant was represented by Ms G. Tuncer, a lawyer practising in
Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the
Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the
proceedings before the Court.
On
1 June 2006 the Court
declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to
the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it
decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at
the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kocaeli.
On
16 October 1992 the applicant was arrested by police officers from
the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on
suspicion of his membership of the Dev-Sol (the Revolutionary
Left) and was taken into police custody.
On
26 October 1992 he was brought before the investigating judge at the
Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered the applicant's detention
on remand.
On
8 January 1993 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security
Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and sixteen
other co-accused, charging them, inter alia, with membership
of an illegal armed organisation and for participating in activities
that undermined the constitutional order of the State. The public
prosecutor sought the death penalty for the applicant pursuant to
Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
In
2004 the State Security Courts were abolished following a
constitutional amendment and the applicant's case was transferred to
the Istanbul Assize Court.
On
2 May 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as
charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The
Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.
The case was remitted before the Istanbul Assize Court where it is
still pending.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The
Government contested that argument. They submitted that the case
was complex, considering the charges against the applicant and the
need to organise a large-scale trial involving sixteen defendants and
numerous witnesses. They contended that these factors explained the
length of the proceedings and that no negligence or delay could be
imputed to the judicial authorities.
The
Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration began on
16 October 1992 when the applicant was taken into police custody. The
proceedings are still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court. They
have thus lasted over fourteen years.
A. Admissibility
The
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among
many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Pélissier and Sassi, cited above).
Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers
that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive
and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The
applicant claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
20. The Government contested the claim.
The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage on account of the duration of the proceedings, which cannot be
sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation alone.
Therefore, ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 9,600
under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant claimed EUR 3,000 in respect of legal fees. He also
requested to be awarded a certain sum for the costs and expenses
incurred before the Court, leaving the matter to the Court's
discretion.
The
Government contested the applicant's claim as being unsubstantiated
by any documentation.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to
quantum. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant
failed to submit any supporting documents in support of his claim.
The Court therefore does not award any sum under this head.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the remainder of the application
admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 9,600 (nine
thousand six hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage; to be
converted into New Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement and free of any taxes or charges that may be payable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 April 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President
