European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 16848/07
Hasan RÜZGAR
against Turkey
lodged on 19 March 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Hasan Rüzgar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Ms F. Yolcu, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 30 August 1990 a policeman was killed in an armed clash between the Tunceli security forces and members of an illegal organisation. In an indictment dated 28 December 1990 the public prosecutor attached to the Erzincan State Security Court brought charges against the applicant, in absentia, for taking part in the clash and attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the State.

It seems that between 1990 and 1995 a total of five sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant before various courts for committing several terrorist acts on behalf of an illegal organisation, such as armed conflict with security forces, homicide, assault of a police officer and armed robbery.

These various sets of criminal proceedings were joined at different times with another case before the Istanbul State Security Court.

On 12 June 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the State.

On 15 May 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on account of certain procedural shortcomings.

Following the abolition of the State Security Courts, the Istanbul Assize Court resumed the criminal proceedings (2006/124 E.).

On 31 January 2005, after holding eighteen hearings, the Istanbul Assize Court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment.

On 26 March 2006 the Court of Cassation once more quashed the judgment.

In the meantime, separate criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant before the Malatya Assize Court, which, on 3 May 2006, issued a warrant for the applicant’s arrest, while he was being detained pending trial before the Istanbul Assize Court. On an unknown date, those proceedings were also joined with the case before the Istanbul Assize Court.

On 4 October 2006 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to release the applicant, taking into account the period he had spent in detention. The court ordered that the applicant be released immediately, unless there was any other reason justifying keeping him in detention.

On 18 October 2006 the applicant lodged an objection against the new arrest warrant issued by the Malatya Assize Court, claiming that the impugned criminal proceedings had already been joined to the proceedings before the Istanbul Assize Court.

On the next day, the Istanbul Assize Court established that although separate criminal proceedings had been instigated against the applicant, they had all subsequently been joined with the instant case (2006/124 E.) and the arrest warrant issued by the Malatya Assize Court had thus been erroneous. Following that clarification, the Istanbul Assize Court ordered that the decision of 4 October 2006 be executed without delay.

According to the information provided by the applicant, the proceedings were still pending at the time the application was introduced to the Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that, owing to a judicial error, his release was delayed by fifteen days, during which he was deprived of his liberty without any legal basis.

Relying on Article 5 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant argues that the national authorities did not inform him of the grounds for the new arrest order, which made it difficult for him to challenge it.

Finally, the applicant argues under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that there was no compensatory remedy provided in the domestic system for his allegation under Article 5 § 1.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Was the applicant deprived of his liberty between 4 and 19 October 2006 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Hamsioglu v. Turkey, no. 2036/04, §§ 26-31, 19 February 2008, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 170-74, ECHR 2000-IV)?

2.  Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1 as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?