European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 19582/02
by Ali ÇİMEN
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mrs F. Tulkens, President,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Ms D. Jočienė,
Mr D. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 December 2001,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ali Çimen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and was serving a prison sentence in Nazilli prison at the time of his application to the Court. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. İşeri, a lawyer practising in İzmir.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 17 April 2000 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of his involvement in the activities of an illegal armed organisation. On 20 April 2000 he was brought before a public prosecutor and a single judge at the İzmir State Security Court. It appears from the case-file that before the prosecutor and the judge the applicant admitted having participated in certain activities of the illegal armed organisation.

On 20 April 2000 the applicant’s lawyer requested to visit him. On the same day the public prosecutor refused this request.

On 2 May 2000 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court, accusing the applicant of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. He requested that the applicant be sentenced and convicted under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.

In a hearing held on 20 July 2000, the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to hear Mr M.D., Mr H.Ö. and Mr K.S. whose submissions to the police had been admitted in the case file. The court refused this request on the ground that the evidence in the case file sufficiently elucidated the facts of the case.

On 5 December 2000 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. In its decision, the court attached a particular importance to the applicant’s statements given to the single judge. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 11 June 2001.

B.  Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the Kabasakal and Atar v. Turkey judgment (nos. 70084/01 and 70085/01, §§ 26-28, 19 September 2006).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he did not receive a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. In this respect, he points out that the judges sitting on the bench of the State Security Courts are attached to the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors and that State Security Courts were established by law to deal with threats to the security and integrity of the State. He further complains that he was convicted on the basis of his statements in police custody which were taken under duress.

The applicant maintains under Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was not served on him, thus depriving him of the opportunity to put forward his counter-arguments. Under the same provision, the applicant complains that he was deprived of his right to legal assistance while in police custody.

The applicant submits under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention that he was not given the opportunity to question three witnesses against him.

Finally the applicant complains, without invoking any particular Article of the Convention, about the fact that he was detained three hundred kilometres away from İzmir.

THE LAW

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.

It follows that this part of the application should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the non-communication of the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation and the lack of legal assistance during police custody;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

S. Dollé F. Tulkens Registrar President