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 >>
CEYRAN v. TURKEY - 17534/03 [2009] ECHR 1542 (13 October 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1542.html
Cite as:
[2009] ECHR 1542
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF CEYRAN v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 17534/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13
October 2009
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 Ceyran v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė
Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 September 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 17534/03) 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 Süleyman
Ceyran (“the applicant”), on 15 April 2003.
The applicant was represented by
Mr F. Babaoğlu, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The
Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent.
On
19 June 2007 the Court
declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings
relating to a bill of indictment dated 26 September 2001. It
also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the
application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Switzerland.
On
26 September 2001 the public prosecutor at the Erzurum State Security
Court filed a bill of indictment with the Erzurum State Security
Court against the applicant on the charge of membership of an illegal
organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way), for certain
offences allegedly committed in 1981 or before.
On
15 August 2003 the Erzurum State Security Court issued a decision of
lack of jurisdiction (görevsizlik kararı), pursuant
to provisional Article 1 of Law no. 2845, which limited the
jurisdiction of State Security Courts to offences committed after 1
May 1984. The case was thus referred to the Sivas Assize Court.
On
11 November 2004 the Second Chamber of the Sivas Assize Court
acquitted the applicant of the charges against him. The applicant did
not attend any of the hearings before the Sivas Assize Court as he
lived in Switzerland at the material time.
On
19 November 2004 the judgment of 11 November 2004 became final since
it was not appealed by the parties.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings
against him had been incompatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The
Government contested that argument. They did not provide any
observations in relation to the period of time when the case was
pending before the Erzurum State Security Court prior to its decision
of non jurisdiction. As for the proceedings before the Sivas
Assize Court, they stated that only eight hearings had been held
before this court, with intervals of approximately one month. They
further argued that the applicant had contributed to the length of
the proceedings in question since he had failed to attend the
hearings.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 26 September
2001, when the bill of indictment was filed against the applicant
with the Erzurum State Security Court, and ended on 19 November 2004,
when the judgment of the Sivas Assize Court acquitting the applicant
became final. It thus lasted three years, one month and twenty four
days for one level of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
The
Court notes that this complaint 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)
Although
the overall length of the proceedings does not appear to be excessive
per se, the Court notes that it took the Erzurum State
Security Court almost two years to decide that it lacked jurisdiction
to hear the case, which appears to be an obvious conclusion in the
light of the clear provisions of Law no. 2845. The Court further
notes that the Government failed to provide any explanation to
justify the delay encountered at the Erzurum State Security Court,
nor did they submit any documents in relation to the proceedings
before this court. The Court particularly notes in this regard that
the fact that the applicant had been absent from the hearings had no
bearing on the decision of the Erzurum State Security Court, whose
decision of lack of jurisdiction involved a purely technical matter.
The Court, therefore, cannot but conclude that the authorities failed
to deal with the case diligently, particularly in relation to the
period of time when the case was pending before the Erzurum State
Security Court, and caused a substantial delay (see, among others,
Obluk v. Slovakia, no. 69484/01, §§ 73 77,
20 June 2006).
In
these circumstances, and 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
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.
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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise Tulkens
Deputy
Registrar President
