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 >>
CARKCI v. TURKEY - 7940/05 [2007] ECHR 526 (26 June 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/526.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 526
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF ÇARKÇI v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 7940/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26
June 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 Çarkçı v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting 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 F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 5 June 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 7940/05) 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 Önder Çarkçı
(“the applicant”), on 4 February 2005.
The
applicant was represented by Mrs M. Arslan, 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
8 April 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application to
the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1973 and is currently detained on remand in
Kandıra prison.
On
17 July 1996 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of
having committed robbery.
On
25 July 1996 the Büyükçekmece Magistrates' Court
ordered his detention on remand.
On
9 August 1996 the Bakırköy public prosecutor filed an
indictment with the Bakırköy Assize Court, charging the
applicant with robbery and homicide under Articles 448, 450, 497 of
the Criminal Code and Article 13 § 1 of Law No. 6136.
On
21 February 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security
Court filed another indictment, charging the applicant with
attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 §
1 of the Criminal Code.
On
23 October 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court decided to join the
two cases against the applicant.
On
27 January 2000 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security
Court submitted his opinion concerning the merits of the case,
reiterating his view in the indictment that the applicant should be
convicted under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
On
14 March 2003 the Bakırköy Assize Court also decided to
join the two cases.
The
applicant requested to be released pending trial several times, both
before the Bakırköy Assize Court and the Istanbul State
Security Court. The courts dismissed his requests on each occasion,
having regard to the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence
and the possibility of his fleeing.
By
Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette
on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The
case against the applicant was transferred to the Istanbul Assize
Court.
According
to the information in the Court's case file, the criminal proceedings
are apparently still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that his detention on remand exceeded the
“reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of
the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with
the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be
... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending
trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
The
Government contested that argument.
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 observes that, in the instant case, the applicant's detention
on remand began on 17 July 1996 and, according to the information in
the case file, it is still pending. It has thus lasted approximately
ten years and eleven months.
The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention in cases raising similar issues to those in the present
application (see, for example, Dereci v. Turkey, no. 77845/01,
24 May 2005, and Taciroğlu v. Turkey, no. 25324/02, 2
February 2006).
Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing 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 applicant's
detention on remand was excessive and contravened Article 5 § 3
of the Convention.
There
has accordingly been a violation of this provision.
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.”
The
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on
that account (see Ciucci v. Italy, no. 68345/01, § 33, 1
June 2006).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
5 § 3 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 June 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
F. Elens-Passos F. Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
