European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 5337/02
by Mehmet BİLEN
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B.M. Zupančič, President,

Mr C. Bîrsan,

Mr R. Türmen,

Mrs E. Fura-Sandström,

Mrs A. Gyulumyan,

Mr David Thór Björgvinsson,

Mrs I. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,

and Mr S. Quesada, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 October 2001,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mehmet Bilen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Diyarbakır. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Çınar, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır.

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

On 9 April 2001 the applicant was arrested at his house and taken into police custody. According to the search and seizure protocol, drafted by police officers and signed by the applicant, three police officers accompanied by Mr Z.U. (another suspect) arrived at the applicant’s house. Upon the applicant’s consent, the police officers searched the house and found four illegal documents. After the search the applicant was taken for a medical examination and subsequently to the Diyarbakır Security Directorate.

The applicant alleges that 7 to 9 police officers entered into his house, shouting and pointing guns and made him lie down for about an hour during which time they searched his house. He maintains that he was not allowed to go to the bathroom or to talk to his family. Afterwards he was handcuffed, blindfolded and taken to a police station. During his stay in detention, the applicant submits that he was sworn at and threatened. He further heard other people being tortured and was forced to listen to loud racist music. Moreover, the applicant states that he was not given sufficient food and could only go to the bathroom a limited number of times a day.

During this time, the police established a police presence (gecici karakol) at the applicant’s house and remained there until 7 p.m. The applicant’s family and friends who were at the house were prevented from moving about freely.

On the same day, the applicant’s lawyer and brother petitioned the public prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court requesting information about the applicant’s arrest. The applicant’s lawyer further requested the end to the police presence in the applicant’s house. The applicant’s brother was informed on the same day that the applicant was held in detention at the anti-terror branch of the Security Directorate.

On 18 April 2001 the applicant was examined by a doctor who did not find any signs of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body.

On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the State Security Court. The applicant submitted, inter alia, that he did not accept the contents of his submissions to the police and that he had signed them blindfolded. He was released the same day.

On 24 May 2001 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal armed organisation. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.

On 17 July 2001 the criminal proceedings against the applicant together with thirty-three other suspects commenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court.

In the hearing held on 25 September 2001 the court heard the applicant who denied the accusations against him. He also said that he did not accept his statements given to the police.

The case is still pending before the Diyarbakır Assize Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant submits under Article 3 of the Convention that police officers ill-treated him during his arrest and detention in police custody.

The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention of the length of his detention in police custody, the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention and the absence of a remedy in domestic law to obtain compensation for the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention. He further complains that he was ill-treated and forced to sign a deposition in custody in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. Under the same provision, he submits that he was not allowed to contact anyone, particularly a lawyer during this period and that neither he nor his family were told by whom he was being interrogated.

The applicant argues under Article 6 that the prosecution failed to initiate any investigation into his complaints of ill treatment.

The applicant submits under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention that he was deprived of his right to legal assistance while in police custody and that his statements taken under torture were used against him during the criminal proceedings.

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the search conducted in his house as well as the police presence at his house was unlawful.

The applicant maintains under Article 13, in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, that he was denied an effective domestic remedy.

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.

2.  As regards the applicant’s remaining complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence.

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 length of his detention in police custody, the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of this detention and the absence of a remedy in domestic law to obtain compensation for the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Santiago Quesada Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President