SIMSEK proti Turecku

THIRD SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 18667/02
by Ramazan SIMSEK
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B.M. Zupančič, President,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr C. Bîrsan,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Gyulumyan,
Mr David Thór Björgvinsson,
Mrs I. Ziemele, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 April 2002,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the partial decision of 14 October 2004,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ramazan Şimşek, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Batman. He is represented before the Court by Ms Y. Dora Şeker, a lawyer practising in Adana.

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

On 23 October 1995 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Izmir Security Directorate on suspicion of his involvement in the PKK.

On 6 November 1995 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, who remanded the applicant in custody.

On 20 November 1995 the public prosecutor at the Konya State Security Court filed an indictment with the same court accusing the applicant of being a member of the PKK.

On 19 May 1997, after the promulgation of Law No. 4210, which abolished the Konya State Security Court, the case file was transferred to the Adana State Security Court. The criminal proceedings at the Adana State Security Court began on 11 June 1997.

On 16 June 1998 the Adana State Security Court convicted the applicant of the offence as charged and sentenced him to the death penalty. It then commuted this to life imprisonment.

On 6 May 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the State Security Court on account of “the lack of a final investigation” and remitted the case file back to the latter.

The criminal proceedings at the Adana State Security Court began on 24 August 1999. On 23 November 1999 the court convicted the applicant of the same offence and issued the same sentence.

On 27 September 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court and remitted the case to the Adana State Security Court.

On 15 March 2001, the Adana State Security Court, after having complied with the requirement of the Court of Cassation, sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment.

On 27 September 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the latter judgment. The applicant was notified of this judgment on 9 April 2002.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand exceeded a “reasonable time” requirement within the meaning of this provision.

THE LAW

The applicant complained that the period of his detention on remand was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

The Court notes that the applicant was detained on remand on 6 November 1995 and was convicted by the judgment of the Adana State Security Court on 15 March 2001. Following that date, the applicant was detained “after conviction by a competent court” and no longer “for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority”. On 27 September 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment. The applicant was notified of the judgment on 9 April 2002. Accordingly, the period to be considered under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention started on 6 November 1995 and ended on 15 March 2001. However, the application was lodged with the Court on 15 April 2002, which is more than six months after the final domestic decision within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected for non-compliance with the six-month’s rule, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President