European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Applications nos. 4446/08, 35302/08, 47239/08 and 44695/09

by Erdener DEMİREL and Fehmi KARAMAN and Others

against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 16 January 2008, 23 June 2008, 25 September 2008 and 13 August 2009 respectively,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

Application no. 4446/08

Relying on Articles 5 §§ 1 and 4 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, the applicants alleged that the procedure whereby they had challenged the first-instance court’s orders for their continued detention had not been adversarial.

They next complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that there had been no compensatory remedy provided in domestic law for the alleged breach of Article 5.

The applicants finally argued under Article 6 that they had not been tried by an impartial court due to the appointment procedure of the judges at the Assize Courts.

Application no. 35302/08

Relying on Articles 5 § 3 and 6 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive and that there had been no effective remedy by which they could have challenged the unlawfulness of their continued detention.

Application no.47239/08

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention on remand had been unreasonably lengthy and that the first-instance court had constantly prolonged it on stereotypical grounds.

Relying on 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant further contended that the review proceedings whereby he challenged the first-instance court’s orders prolonging his detention had been ineffective.

Application no. 44695/09

Relying on 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that her pre-trial detention had been unreasonably lengthy, which amounted to a breach of her right to be presumed innocent and had had adverse effects on her professional career as a singer.

The applicant further alleged under Articles 5 § 4 and 6 § 1 of the Convention that she had not been afforded the procedural guarantees of a fair trial in the proceedings by which she requested the review of the lawfulness of her continued detention.

THE LAW

The Court considers that the complaint concerning the puported lack of an effective procedure to challenge the alleged unlawfulness of their continued detention must be examined from the standpoint of Article 5 § 4 alone. It further considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case files, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of these parts of the applications to the respondent Government.

The Court observes that the second and fourth applicants were held in pre-trial detention for eleven months and eight months respectively on account of suspicion of their involvement in organised crimes. It further observes that the third applicant, who was detained pending trial for twenty- five months, was released on 8 October 2008. During that period, the first-instance court ordered his continued detention on the basis of the reasonable suspicion against the applicant that he had commanded the activities of the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), an illegal organisation. It also had regard to the incomplete state of evidence in the case file.

Taking into consideration of the serious nature of the charges brought against the applicants, the Court does not find that these remand periods exceeded “the reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Nor does it find that the domestic courts failed to act with due diligence while reviewing the applicants’ continued detention. These parts of the applications must, therefore, be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

The Court considers that this complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It further notes that the criminal proceedings against the applicants are still pending before the first-instance court. The complaint is, therefore, premature and 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 join the applications;

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaints concerning their right to take proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their continued detention, as well as the applicants’ enforceable right to compensation under Article 5 in application no. 4446/08;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President