KARAGOZ proti Turecku

THIRD SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 5701/02
by Gönül KARAGÖZ
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 May 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr G. Ress, President,
Mr I. Cabral Barreto,
Mr L. Caflisch,
Mr B. Zupančič,
Mr J. Hedigan,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mrs H.S. Greve, judges,
and Mr M. Villiger, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 December 2001,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Gönül Karagöz, is a Turkish national, who was born in Bingöl and lives in Istanbul. She is represented before the Court by Mr E. Kanar and Mrs Y. Başaran, lawyers practising in Istanbul.

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

On 22 February 1997 the applicant was arrested by the police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate and was placed in custody.

On 6 March 1997 the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court (“the State Security Court”). Subsequently the investigating judge detained the applicant on remand.

On 18 March 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the same court accusing the applicant for being a member of the MLKP (Marxist Leninist Communist Party) and having explosives in her possession. The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be punished pursuant to Articles 168 § 1 and 264 § 5 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law No. 3713 (Anti-terror law).

Throughout the criminal proceedings, either on its own motion or at the applicant's request, the State Security Court examined and ordered the applicant's continued detention. The court relied on “the nature of the offences charged, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file” when ordering the applicant's further detention.

On 29 June 2001 the court decided to release the applicant due to ill-health.

On 16 October 2002 the applicant was convicted for being a member of an illegal armed organisation and having explosives in her possession.

The applicant appealed against the decision.

On 15 January 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant's conviction and referred the case to the State Security Court.

The case is still pending before the State Security Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that her custody period was unreasonably long and that the length of her detention on remand exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of this provision.

She further complains that the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against her constitute a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the length of her detention on remand exceeded the reasonable time requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

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 this complaint to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 5 § 3 that she was kept in custody for twelve days without being brought before a judge.

The Court observes that, the applicant's custody ended on 6 March 1997 whereas the application was brought before the Court on 25 December 2001 that is more than six months after the detention complained of.

The Court therefore concludes that this part of the application has been lodged out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

3. The applicant alleges that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against her contravened the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

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 this complaint to the respondent Government.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaints concerning the length of the detention on remand and the length of the criminal proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Mark Villiger Georg Ress
Deputy Registrar President