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 >>
MEHMET KOC v. TURKEY - 36686/07 [2009] ECHR 294 (17 February 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/294.html
Cite as:
[2009] ECHR 294
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF MEHMET KOÇ v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 36686/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17 February 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 Mehmet Koç v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András
Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş, judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 27 January 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 36686/07) 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 Mehmet Koç
(“the applicant”), on 27 July 2007. The
applicant was represented by Ms F. Danış, a
lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent.
On 26 February 2008
the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate to the Government the complaint concerning the length of
the criminal proceedings. It also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3). On 21 October 2008 the President of
the Second Section refused to include in the case file the
applicant's just satisfaction claims, which were filed outside the
time-limit (Rule 38 § 1).
THE FACTS
The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Diyarbakır.
On 27 April 1999 he was arrested. On 24 May 1999 the public
prosecutor filed a bill of indictment, charging him under Article 125
of the former Criminal Code. On 13 December 2002 the Diyarbakır
State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged. On 7 October
2003 the Court of Cassation quashed that decision. Following the
abolition of the State Security Courts in 2004, the Diyarbakır
Assize Court took over the case and on 19 April 2007 convicted the
applicant. The applicant appealed. On 12 December 2007 the Court of
Cassation upheld the judgment.
THE LAW
The
applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in
his case had been incompatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The
Government rejected that claim.
The Court observes that the criminal proceedings
against the applicant began on 27 April 1999 when he was arrested,
and ended on 12 December 2007 when the Court of Cassation upheld
his conviction. They thus lasted some eight years and seven months
for two levels of jurisdiction.
The
Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention nor
inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the
length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the
circumstances of the case (see, among many other authorities,
Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94,
§ 67, ECHR 1999 II). Having regard to the total length of
the proceedings before the trial court in the present case, the Court
is not convinced that these proceedings were conducted within a
reasonable time. In the light of the foregoing, the Court holds that
there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
As
to just satisfaction, the Court makes no award as the applicant
failed to submit his claim for damages within the time allotted to
him (see Taner v. Turkey, no. 38414/02, § 35, 15
February 2007).
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;
Dismisses the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 February 2009,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
