SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 17534/03
by Süleyman CEYRAN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
	Mrs	 , President,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mrs	 	Mr	  judges,
and Mrs S. , Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 April 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Süleyman Ceyran, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Switzerland. He is represented before the Court by Mr F. Babaoğlu, a lawyer practising in Ankara.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 7 September 1982 an investigation was initiated into the applicant by the Erzincan military public prosecutor and a military judge from the Erzincan martial law court issued an arrest warrant in his respect as he was suspected of attempting to undermine the constitutional order.
In 1985 a case was brought against the applicant on the charge of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way) and homicide.
On 12 September 2002 the First Chamber of the Sivas Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges as there was insufficient evidence.
On 10 October 2002 the judgment of 12 September 2002 became final since neither the applicant nor the Sivas public prosecutor appealed.
In the meantime, on 26 June 2001 the public prosecutor at the Erzurum State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the Erzurum State Security Court against the applicant and a certain M.Z. on charges of membership of the Dev-Yol.
On 15 August 2003 the Erzurum State Security Court issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction (görevsizlik kararı) and referred the case to the Sivas Assize Court.
On 11 November 2004 the Second Chamber of the Sivas Assize Court acquitted the applicant and his co-accused of the charges against them.
On 19 November 2004 the judgment of 11 November 2004 became final since neither the applicant and his co-accused nor the Sivas public prosecutor appealed.
The applicant was a fugitive during the preliminary investigation. On an unspecified date he arrived in Switzerland. During the criminal proceedings against him he made his defence submissions in writing.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were not concluded within a reasonable time.
The applicant further complained that his rights guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 were violated.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 of the Convention that the proceedings against him were not concluded within a reasonable time.
The Court considers that this complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 of the Convention alone.
a) As regards the case brought against the applicant in 1985, the Court reiterates that it may only deal with a matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.
In the instant case, the judgment of 12 September 2002 became final on 10 October 2002, whereas the application was lodged with the Court on 15 April 2003, i.e. more than six months later.
It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
b) As regards the case brought against the applicant by the bill of indictment dated 26 June 2001, 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.
2. The applicant complained that his rights guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 were violated.
The Court notes that, as Turkey has not ratified these Protocols, the related complaints are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings insofar as it relates to the proceedings brought by the bill of indictment of 26 June 2001;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

	S. 
	Registrar	President