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 >>
DEDEOCLU v. TURKEY - 16444/07 [2011] ECHR 134 (25 January 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/134.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 134
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF DEDEOĞLU v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 16444/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25
January 2011
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 Dedeoğlu v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András
Sajó,
Işıl Karakaş,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges,
and Stanley Naismith,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 January 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 16444/07) 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 Cantürk Dedeoğlu (“the
applicant”), on 5 April 2007.
The
applicant was represented by Mr E. Cinmen, a lawyer practising in
İstanbul. The Turkish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent.
On
27 August 2009 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (former
Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1968 and lives in İstanbul.
On
11 December 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud.
On
12 February 2001 he was released pending trial.
On
29 November 2005 the İstanbul Assize Court sentenced the
applicant to two years and one month's imprisonment.
On
19 October 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of
29 November 2005.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The
Government contested that argument.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 11 December 2000
when the applicant was arrested and ended on 19 October 2006 when the
Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court's judgment. It
thus lasted five years and ten months before two levels of
jurisdiction.
The
Government put forward various preliminary objections concerning
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and asked the Court to dismiss
the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as required
by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
The
Court notes that it has already examined similar submissions made by
the respondent Government in Daneshpayeh v. Turkey
(no. 21086/04, §§ 35-38, 16 July 2009). The Government
have not submitted any arguments which could lead the Court to reach
a different conclusion in the instant case. Consequently, the Court
rejects the Government's preliminary objections as to the exhaustion
of domestic remedies.
The
Government further argued that the applicant has failed to comply
with the six month rule under Article 35 of the Convention.
The
Court observes that in the present case the final domestic decision
was taken on 19 October 2006 by the Court of Cassation and the
application was introduced on 5 April 2007 i.e. within six months
following the domestic decision of 19 October 2006. The applicant
must therefore be considered to have complied with the six-month rule
provided under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The
Government's objection must therefore be rejected.
The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
As
regards the merits, the Court reiterates that the reasonableness of
the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the
circumstances of the case and with reference to the following
criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant
and of the relevant authorities (Daneshpayeh, cited above, §
26).
The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (Daneshpayeh, cited above).
Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers
that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive
and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had
been denied a fair hearing as the domestic courts had erred in their
assessment of the facts. He argued under the same provision that the
decisions of the domestic courts had lacked adequate reasoning.
In
the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that
the above submissions by the applicant do not disclose any appearance
of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention
or its Protocols. It follows that these complaints must be declared
inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35
§§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see, in particular, García
Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29,
ECHR 1999-I).
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The
applicant claimed 617,010 Turkish Liras (TRY) (approximately 337,105
euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 50,000
(approximately EUR 25,119) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested these claims.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects the relevant
claim. However, the Court considers that the applicant must have
sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it
awards him EUR 3,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed TRY 20,000 (approximately EUR 10,047) for
the legal fees incurred before the domestic courts and the Court
without submitting any supporting documents.
The
Government contested these claims.
The
Court makes no award under this head as the applicant has failed to
submit any documentary evidence in support of his claims.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declared the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
Held that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
Held
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000 (three thousand
euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into
Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismissed the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 January 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Françoise Tulkens Registrar President
