European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Zeki MORANER and Izzettin MORANER v Turkey - 27559/06 [2010] ECHR 805 (4 May 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/805.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 805
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
27559/06
by Zeki MORANER and İzzettin MORANER
against
Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 June 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Zeki Moraner and Mr İzzettin Moraner, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1950 and 1961 respectively and live in Van. They are represented before the Court by Mr E. Bingöl, a lawyer practising in Van.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 12 May 1999 the applicants were taken into custody by the gendarmerie on suspicion of committing a murder.
On 13 May 1999 the applicants were examined by a doctor and, according to the medical report, there were no signs of injury on their body.
On 14 May 1999 the applicants were brought before the Çaldıran Public Prosecutor.
On 15 May 1999 the applicants were brought before the judge at the Çaldıran Magistrates' Court who ordered their pre-trial detention.
On 15 June 1999 the Erciş Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicants and two other persons, charging them with murder.
On 16 June 1999 the criminal proceedings against the applicants were resumed before the Erciş Assize Court.
On 11 September and 16 October 2000, respectively, the first and second applicants were released pending trial.
On 23 January 2006 the applicants were acquitted as the court did not find it established that they had committed the crime in question. The judgment became final as no appeal was lodged.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment while in gendarmerie custody.
They further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against them had been unreasonably long.
THE LAW
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against them had been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement.
The Court considers that, it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.
The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment in gendarmerie custody.
The Court observes in the first place that the applicants have failed to provide any evidence in support of this allegation. It notes that the applicants were medically examined on 13 May 1999, when no signs of ill-treatment were found.
The Court further observes that the applicants did not bring the allegations of ill-treatment to the attention of the national authorities. They could have, for example, informed the Çaldıran Public Prosecutor before whom they were brought on 14 May 1999 following their detention. Nor did they inform the judges or the prosecutor of this complaint during their trial before the Erciş Assize Court. No evidence has been submitted to the Court to show that they took any initiatives on this question (Nuray Şen v. Turkey (dec.), no. 41478/98, 30 April 2002; Muzaffer Sünük v. Turkey (dec.), no. 27 November 2007).
Consequently, the Court finds that in the circumstances of this case the applicants cannot be considered to have exhausted domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The applicants' complaint under Article 3 of the Convention must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants' complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against them;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President