European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Onder DOLUTAS v Turkey - 17914/09 [2010] ECHR 1527 (21 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1527.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1527
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
17914/09
by Önder DOLUTAŞ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Dragoljub
Popović,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş,
Kristina
Pardalos,
Guido
Raimondi, judges,
and
Stanley Naismith, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 March 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Önder Dolutaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977. He is represented before the Court by Mr H. Karakuş and Mrs G. Altay, lawyers practising in İstanbul.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 6 May 1998 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. The applicant was allegedly ill-treated and denied access to legal assistance during this period. He did not provide medical reports in support of his allegations of ill-treatment.
On 9 May 1998 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor where he stated that he had been tortured in police custody but did not give any details.
On the same day the judge at the İstanbul State Security Court ordered his pre-trial detention.
On 11 May 1998 the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with membership of an illegal organisation.
On 18 May 1998 the applicant's case was resumed before the İstanbul State Security Court.
On 14 July 1998 the court joined the applicant's case to case no. 1998/2.
On the same day he was released pending trial.
On 20 February 2001 the court decided to summon the applicant to appear before the court to use his right to defence with a view to a possible alteration of the offence he was charged with.
On 30 November 2001 the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court filed an additional bill of indictment, charging him with using explosives.
From 10 May 2001 to 24 February 2009 the applicant failed to appear before the court. The authorities could not establish his whereabouts.
On 24 February 2009 the court ruled that the criminal proceedings be discontinued on the grounds that the prosecution was time-barred. On the same day the applicant's lawyer appealed the judgment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations under Article 3.
The applicant submitted under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the İstanbul State Security Court. Under the same Article, he contended that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement.
He maintained under Article 13 of the Convention that there had been no remedies in domestic law in respect of his complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings.
Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention he submitted that his right to the presumption of innocence had been breached because the judicial authorities had taken into consideration the arguments of the police and the public prosecutor throughout the criminal proceedings.
Finally, he claimed under Article 6 § 3 of the Convention that he had been denied the assistance of a lawyer during the initial stages of the criminal proceedings.
THE LAW
He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that no effective remedy existed under Turkish law in respect of his complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of those complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of those parts of the application to the respondent Government.
The Court observes that in his statement before the public prosecutor the applicant merely stated that he had been tortured in police custody without giving any details of the alleged acts. Even assuming that the applicant has exhausted the domestic remedies (Nuray Şen v. Turkey (dec.), no. 41478/98, 30 April 2002, and Muzaffer Sünük v. Turkey (dec.), no. 9610/03, 27 November 2007), the Court observes that the applicant failed to provide any concrete evidence, such as medical reports, in support of his allegation of ill-treatment (Mesut Yurtsever v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42086/02, 31 August 2006). In particular, the applicant did not provide any details concerning his alleged ill-treatment in police custody (Yusuf Fidan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 24209/94, 29 February 2000).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that there is no evidence before it to suggest that the applicant was ill-treated in police custody contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court further notes that Article 13 of the Convention applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a right under the Convention (see, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Having regard to the considerations under Article 3, the Court considers that the applicant did not make an “arguable claim” for that grievance which would have required a remedy under Article 13.
It follows that those complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
The Court observes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending. The applicant's complaints under this provision are therefore premature. Consequently, these parts of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, for example, Koç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36686/07, 26 February 2008).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaints concerning the length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in respect of this complaint;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stanley Naismith Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President