(Applications nos. 44058/04, 19807/05 and 26384/05)
1 December 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 Özcan Korkmaz and Others v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 November 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES
- application no. 44058/04: 20 April 2004 (decision served on the applicant on 3 May 2004)
- application no. 19807/05: 26 April 2005
- application no. 26384/05: 2 February 2005
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
“Prosecutors shall examine the files assigned to them on behalf of the Principal Prosecutor and shall give their written reasoned opinions on [his or her] behalf within thirty days at the latest in proceedings [on the merits] ... [They] shall perform other tasks assigned by the President and the Principal Prosecutor...
Prosecutors may demand, through the President, all types of information and files from the relevant authorities.
Where deemed necessary by the Chambers and Assembly of Chambers, prosecutors may [be asked to] express their opinions orally...”
“...Rapporteurs shall duly examine the cases assigned to them by the Presidents of the Chamber[s] and shall provide the Chamber or the Assembly of Chambers with the necessary explanations.
[The rapporteurs] shall give their opinion[s] and conclusions orally and in writing, shall write draft judgments, [and] draw up the necessary minutes. [They] shall perform other tasks assigned by the President or the President of the Chamber[s].”
I. AS REGARDS THE APPLICANT MURAT İSLAM (APPLICATION NO. 26384/05)
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
1. Non-communication of the principal public prosecutor's written opinion (applications nos. 44058/04 and 19807/05)
2. Lack of access to classified documents (application no. 19807/05)
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
2. Declares admissible the complaints concerning the non-communication of the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor to the applicants during the proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court in respect of applications nos. 44058/04 and 19807/05 and the applicant's inability to access the classified documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence to that court in respect of application no. 19807/05;
3. Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 December 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens