EGE proti Turecku

FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 47117/99
by Mehmet Ali EGE
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 February 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr M. Pellonpää,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr J. Casadevall,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr J. Borrego Borrego,
Mrs E. Fura-Sandström, judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 November 1998,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mehmet Ali Ege, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Mardin. He is represented before the Court by Mr Ömer Öneren, a lawyer practising in Ankara.

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

On 29 September 1980 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK.

On 1 January 1981 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.

On 14 September 1981 the public prosecutors’ office at the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation. The public prosecutors’ office requested that the applicant be charged and convicted under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code.

On 19 February 1985 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to twenty-four years’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 §1 of the Criminal Code.

On 10 April 1990 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court on the ground that the latter had misinterpreted the domestic law in respect of the offence in question.

On 29 July 1990 the applicant was released from detention.

Subsequent to promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Courts, the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the applicant’s case.

On 13 July 1998 the Diyarbakır Assize Court ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant submits under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment while he was held in police custody.

The applicant contends that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest and of the charges against him as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention.

The applicant alleges that he was kept in police custody for ninety-nine days without being brought before a judge. In this respect he relies on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand was excessive.

The applicant claims under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he did not have any domestic remedy whereby he could obtain compensation for his detention. He submits that the Court of Cassation ruled that Law No. 466, which guarantees the possibility of payment of compensation in case of unlawful detention, does not apply when the criminal proceedings are terminated on the ground that the statutory time limit had expired.

The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings brought against him were not concluded within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant submits under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment while he was held in police custody.

The Court observes that the applicant’s detention in police custody ended on 1 January 1981 when the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court ordered his detention on remand.

The Court reiterates that the Court’s competence to examine individual petitions extends only to the facts and judgments based on events occurring after 28 January 1987 in respect of Turkey, the date on which Turkey recognised the competence of the Convention organs to examine individual petitions. The Court observes that the above complaint concerns a period prior to 28 January 1987.

Consequently, this part of the application is outside the Court’s competence ratione temporis and must accordingly be rejected as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

2. The applicant contends that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest and of the charges against him as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. The applicant further alleges under Article 5 § 3 that he was kept in police custody ninety-nine days without being brought before a judge.

The Court observes that the applicant was held in police custody between 29 September 1980 and 1 January 1981. As mentioned above, the Court’s competence to examine individual petitions extends only to the facts and judgments based on events occurring after 28 January 1987 in respect of Turkey, the date on which Turkey recognised the competence of the Convention organs to examine individual petitions. The Court observes that the above complaints concern a period prior to 28 January 1987.

Consequently, this part of the application is outside the Court’s competence ratione temporis and must accordingly be rejected as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

3. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand was excessive.

The Court reiterates that according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, where no domestic remedy is available the six-month period runs from the date of the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention; however, where it concerns a continuing situation, the period of six-month runs from the end of the situation concerned.

The Court notes that the applicant was released from detention on remand on 29 July 1990, whereas the application was introduced with the Court on 19 November 1998, i.e. more than six months later.

It follows that this part of the application is introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

4. The applicant claims under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he did not have any domestic remedy whereby he could obtain compensation for his detention.

The Court reiterates that this provision guarantees an enforceable right to compensation only to those who have been the victims of arrest or detention contrary to Article 5 of the Convention (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports 1996- III, p. 755, § 50). In the absence of any such finding in the present case, the Court is of the opinion that no issues arise under this provision of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

5. The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings brought against him were not concluded within a reasonable time as required by 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 part of the application to the respondent Government.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Françoise Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President