YASAR proti Turecku

FIRST SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 44754/98
by Emin YAŞAR
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) sitting on 8 February 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mrs E. Palm, President,
Mr J. Casadevall,
Mr L. Ferrari Bravo,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr C. Bîrsan,
Mrs W. Thomassen,
Mr R. Maruste, judges,

and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar;

Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 24 September 1996 by Emin Yaşar against Turkey and registered on 2 December 1998 under file no. 44754/98;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 §§ 1 and 4 of the Rules of Court;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Turkish national, born in 1965 and living in Ordu. He is represented before the Court by Mr Vural Soytekin, a lawyer practising in İstanbul.

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

On 11 August 1980 the applicant, accused of being a member of the illegal organisation Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way), was taken into police custody in Fatsa. In 1983, the military court public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against him in the Erzincan Martial Law Court and accused him of participation in an illegal organisation aiming to undermine the constitutional order in order to replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. The prosecution called for the applicant to be sentenced pursuant to Section 146 of the Turkish Criminal Code, which regulates felonies against the state.

On 21 April 1988 the applicant was released pending trial.

On 24 August 1988 the Martial Law Court delivered its decision. It convicted the applicant of the charges against him and sentenced him to imprisonment.

Both the prosecution and the applicant appealed. Pursuant to the Law no. 3953, promulgated on 30 December 1993, the case-file was transferred to a non-military court, the Court of Cassation. On 3 July 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first-instance court on the ground that the court had failed to apply the legal provisions relevant to the crime in question.

On 24 June 1997 the Ankara Assize Court, to which the case had been remitted, ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time-limit under Section 102 of the Turkish Criminal Code had expired.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention about the length of his detention on remand.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against them were not concluded within a reasonable time, as required by the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention about the length of his detention on remand.

The Court recalls that pursuant to Article 35 of the Convention, “the Court may only deal with the matter ... within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. In the absence of domestic remedies, the six-month period runs from the act complained of.”

The Court observes that in the instant case, the applicant was released from detention on remand on 21 April 1988 pending trial, whereas the application was introduced on 24 September 1996, i.e. more than six months later.

It follows that this part of the application is introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 of the Convention.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him was not concluded within a reasonable time as required by 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 § 3 (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 about the length of criminal proceedings.

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Michael O’Boyle Elisabeth Palm
Registrar President