SECOND SECTION

CASE OF DEMİRCİ v. TURKEY

(Application no. 21843/02)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

3 June 2008

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. 

In the case of Demirci v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

and SallyDolléSection Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 May 2008,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 21843/02) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Doğan Demirci (“the applicant”), on 4 March 2002.
2.  The applicant was represented by Mr N. Değirmenci and Mrs B. Değirmenci, lawyers practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3.  On 7 June 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
12
13
14
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
15
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
A.  Admissibility
16
17
B.  Merits
18
19
20
21
II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
22
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
23
24
25
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1.  Declares the complaint concerning the non‑communication to the applicant of the principal public prosecutor's written opinion admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 June 2008, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

	Sally Dollé	Françoise Tulkens
	Registrar	President