European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 36686/07
by Mehmet KOÇ
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
26 February 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Antonella Mularoni,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Rıza Türmen,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 July 2007,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mehmet Koç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Diyarbakır. He is represented before the Court by
Ms F. Danış, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır.

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

On 27 April 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in the activities of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation.

On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Diyarbakır Security Headquarters, where he was questioned by the police for six days and gave information about his involvement with the PKK and in the bombing of a police vehicle.

On 7 May 1999 the applicant confirmed his previous statements when he was brought before the public prosecutor and the judge at the Dicle Magistrate’s Court, who remanded the applicant in custody.

On 24 May 1999 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant along with twenty-one other persons and accused him, under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code, of activities carried out for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.

On 8 July 1999 the Fourth Chamber of the Diyarbakır State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case.

At the seventeenth hearing, held on 4 December 2001, the Diyarbakır State Security Court noted that there was another case pending before it in which other suspects were on trial for the same incidents as the applicant. The Diyarbakır State Security Court then ordered the joinder of the cases.

On 13 December 2002 the Fourth Chamber of the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On 7 October 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed that decision. Noting that Law No. 4959 (the Law on Reintegration into Society) had entered into force on 6 August 2003, the Court of Cassation ruled that the decision should be reviewed in the light of that Law and, therefore, remitted the case to the first-instance court.

The State Security Courts were abolished in 2004 following a constitutional amendment and the applicant’s case was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.

In the course of the ensuing proceedings, the applicant made numerous requests to benefit from Law No. 4959 on amnesties.

On 19 April 2007, after some thirteen hearings, the Diyarbakır Assize Court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment. Referring to a report drawn up by the Ministry of the Interior, the court further held that the applicant’s situation did not meet the requirements of Law No. 4959 and that his sentence could therefore not be reduced.

The applicant appealed.

The proceedings were pending before the Court of Cassation when the application was lodged.

B.  Relevant domestic law

Law No. 4959, which entered into force on 6 August 2003, provided under certain conditions for amnesties and reduced sentences for members of terrorist organisations.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that neither the Diyarbakır State Security Court nor the Diyarbakır Assize Court which tried him had been independent and impartial tribunals. He maintained in particular that the rejection by the Diyarbakır Assize Court of his request to benefit from the Amnesty Law had been arbitrary. He added under the same provision that the criminal proceedings brought against him had not been concluded within a reasonable time.

Relying on Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention, the applicant alleged that he had not been informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him. This, according to the applicant, had deprived him of adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence and had therefore also violated Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention.

The applicant further submitted, under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, that he had been denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody, which was in breach of the “equality of arms” principle. The applicant complained under the same provision that, while he was remanded in custody, he had been unlawfully transferred to the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Diyarbakır Security Headquarters, where he had been questioned by police officers for six days.

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.

The Court observes that the applicant’s allegation concerns “unlawful detention” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. According to the applicant, the incident had taken place sometime between 7 May and
8 July 1999. The Court further notes that the applicant did not file any complaints under domestic law against his allegedly unlawful detention.

The Court reiterates that, under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken in domestic law. Where no remedies are tried, as in the present case, that period may be taken to run from the date of the incident itself. The Court observes that the applicant’s alleged detention in police custody must have ended on 8 July 1999 at the latest, the date of his first trial hearing, whereas the application was introduced on 27 July 2007, i.e. more than six months after the detention complained of.

It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings brought against him;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President