ORMAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - 9462/05 [2010] ECHR 1963 (7 December 2010)

    BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

    European Court of Human Rights
    You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ORMAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - 9462/05 [2010] ECHR 1963 (7 December 2010)
    URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1963.html
    Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1963

    [New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]




    SECOND SECTION







    CASE OF ORMAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY


    (Applications nos. 9462/05, 20369/05, 32652/05, 33193/05, 43845/05, 5295/06 and 48090/08)







    JUDGMENT


    STRASBOURG


    7 December 2010




    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 Orman and Others v. Turkey,

    The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

    Ireneu Cabral Barreto, President,
     Danutė Jočienė,
     Dragoljub Popović,
     Nona Tsotsoria,
     Işıl Karakaş,
     Kristina Pardalos,
     Guido Raimondi, judges,
    and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,

    Having deliberated in private on 16 November 2010,

    Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

    PROCEDURE

  1. The case originated in seven applications (nos. 9462/05, 20369/05, 32652/05, 33193/05, 43845/05, 5295/06 and 48090/08) 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 twelve Turkish nationals, Nedim Orman, Ramazan Kayuk, Bülent Orman, Nedim Serihan, Murat Başusta, Tahsin Eriş, Mehmet Vahit Avcı, Doğan Akçiçek, Erkan Tepeli, Oktay Kalaç, Mehmet Ferit Elatmış and İsmail Cengiz Oğurtan born in 1973, 1974, 1982, 1983, 1975, 1968, 1967, 1974, 1978, 1974, 1984 and 1974 respectively. The dates of introduction of the applications and the names of the applicants' representatives are indicated in the appended table. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

  2. On 11 May 2009 the Court decided to give notice of the applications to the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (former Article 29 § 3).

    3. THE FACTS

    I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

  3. The applicants are Turkish nationals who were arrested and subsequently detained pending judicial proceedings. They were either released or convicted on various dates. The details of the dates of the arrests, the dates of the orders for the applicants' pre trial detention, the dates of the indictments, the dates of the domestic court decisions, the total period of pre-trial detention, the total period of the criminal proceedings where relevant, the dates of release and the grounds for continued detention are set out in the appendix hereto.

    4. II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

    A.  Judicial review of pre-trial detention

  4. A description of the relevant domestic law and practice prior to the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) (Law no. 5271) on 1 June 2005 may be found in Çobanoğlu and Budak v. Turkey (no. 45977/99, §§ 29-31, 30 January 2007). The current practice under the CCP is outlined in Şayık and Others v. Turkey (nos. 1966/07, 9965/07, 35245/07, 35250/07, 36561/07, 36591/07 and 40928/07, §§ 13-15, 8 December 2009).

    5. B.  Compensation for unlawful detention

  5. The relevant domestic law and current practice may be found in Şahap Doğan v. Turkey (no. 29361/07, §§ 18-19, 27 May 2010).

    6. THE LAW

    I.  JOINDER

  6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.

    7. II.  ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION

  7. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive. The applicants in applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05, 33193/05 and 48090/08 further complained under Articles 5 § 4 and 13 of the Convention that there had been no effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the length of their pre-trial detention. The Court notes that the applicants' complaint under Article 13 should be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, being the lex specialis in the matter (see Elğay v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18992/03, 11 September 2007). The applicants in applications nos. 43845/05 and 5295/06 further maintained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that they had had no right to compensation in domestic law for the alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

  8. The Government contested these arguments.

    9. A.  Admissibility

    1.  As regards the applicant, Mehmet Ferit Elalmış in application no. 48090/08

  9. The Court notes that the applicant's pre-trial detention ended on 13 June 2003, when the İstanbul State Security Court released the applicant, whereas the application was introduced with the Court on 20 September 2008, that is, more than six months later (see Canevi and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 40395/98, 30 May 2000). It follows that this part of the application was introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

    10. 2.  As regards the remaining applicants

  10. The Government put forward various preliminary objections concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies and asked the Court to dismiss the complaints under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

  11. The Court notes that it has already examined similar submissions made by the respondent Government in other cases (see, for example, Koşti and Others v. Turkey, no. 74321/01, §§ 19-24, 3 May 2007, and Şayık and Others v. Turkey, cited above, §§ 28-32).

  12. The Government have not submitted any arguments which could lead the Court to reach a different conclusion in the instant case. Consequently, the Court rejects the Government's preliminary objections.

  13. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

    14. B. Merits

    1.  Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

  14. The Government maintained that the applicants' detention had been based on the existence of reasonable grounds of suspicion of them having committed an offence, and that their detention had been reviewed periodically by a competent authority, with special diligence, in accordance with the requirements laid down by applicable law. They pointed out that the offences with which the applicants had been charged had been of a serious nature, and that their continued remand in custody was necessary to prevent crime and to preserve public order.

  15. The Court notes that the shortest duration of pre-trial detention in the present case is more than four years and nine months (see appended table).

  16. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in cases disclosing comparable lengthy periods of pre-trial detention (see, for example, Tutar v. Turkey, no. 11798/03, § 20, 10 October 2006, and Cahit Demirel v. Turkey, no. 18623/03, § 28, 7 July 2009). Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the length of the applicants' pre-trial detention in the present case (see appended table) the Court finds that in the instant case the length of the applicants' pre-trial detention was excessive.

  17. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of all applicants except Mehmet Ferit Elalmış in application no. 48090/08.

    18. 2.  Article 5 § 4 of the Convention

  18. In respect of applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05, 33193/05 and 48090/08, the Government submitted that the applicants had in fact had the possibility of challenging their pre-trial detention by lodging objections pursuant to Article 267 and following articles of the new CCP.

  19. The applicants maintained their allegations.

  20. The Court has already examined the possibility of challenging the lawfulness of pre-trial detention in Turkey in other cases and concluded that the Government had failed to show that the remedy they referred to provided for a procedure that was genuinely adversarial for the detainee (see, for example, Yiğitdoğan v. Turkey, no. 20827/08, §§ 28-31, 16 March 2010).

  21. The Court notes that the Government have not put forward any argument or material in the instant case which would require the Court to depart from its previous findings.

  22. In the light of the foregoing the Court concludes that there has been a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05, 33193/05 and 48090/08.

    23. 3.  Article 5 § 5 of the Convention

  23. In respect of applications nos. 43845/05 and 5296/05, the Government argued that Turkish law afforded the applicants an enforceable right to compensation, contrary to their allegations. They maintained in this regard that the applicants could have sought compensation under Article 141 of the new CCP following its entry into force on 1 June 2005.

  24. As for the remedy envisaged under Article 141 § 1 (d) of the new CCP, the Court notes that this provision introduces a mechanism whereby a person who has been lawfully detained but whose pre-trial detention exceeds a reasonable time may demand compensation from the State. The Court also notes, however, that according to Article 142 § 1 of the same Code, such demand may only be made after the relevant criminal proceedings have come to an end. This remedy is therefore not available in circumstances where the domestic proceedings are still pending, as in the instant case (see Kürüm v. Turkey, no. 56493/07, §§ 18-21, 26 January 2010). It follows that the new CCP also fails to provide an enforceable right to compensation for the applicants' deprivation of liberty in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 5 § 5.

  25. The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 43845/05 and 5295/06.

    26. III.  ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

    A.  Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

  26. The applicants in applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05, 33193/05, 5295/06 and 48090/08 complained that the length of criminal proceedings against them had been incompatible with the reasonable time requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government disputed this allegation.

  27. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

  28. As regards merits, the Government submitted that the length of the proceedings could not be considered to be unreasonable in view of the complexity of the cases, the number of the accused and the nature of the offences with which the applicants were charged.

  29. The Court notes that the shortest duration of the criminal proceedings in the present case is over 6 years and 4 months (see appended table).

  30. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in applications raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Bahçeli v. Turkey, no. 35257/04, § 26, 6 October 2009, and Er v. Turkey, no. 21377/04, § 23, 27 October 2009). Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. The Court therefore considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05, 33193/05, 5295/06 and 48090/08.

    31. B.  Article 13 of the Convention

  31. The applicants in applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05, 33193/05 and 48090/08 further claimed that there had been no effective remedy in domestic law whereby they could have challenged the excessive length of the proceedings in dispute. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention.

  32. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

  33. The Court has examined similar complaints in previous applications and has found violations of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the lack of an effective remedy under Turkish law whereby the applicants could have contested the length of the proceedings at issue (see Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 35-38, 16 July 2009).

  34. It finds no reason to depart from that conclusion in the present case. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05, 33193/05 and 48090/08.

    35. IV.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION

  35. Lastly, the applicants in application no. 9462/05 complained under Article 14 of the Convention that they had been discriminated against since the criminal procedure followed in respect of offences tried by State Security Courts was different from that used for offences tried in other courts. In this respect, they submitted that the State Security Courts had failed to consider the evidence in the case file accurately.

  36. The Court reiterates that Article 14 is not concerned with all differences of treatment but only with differences having as their basis or reason a personal characteristic (“status”) by which persons or a group of persons are distinguishable from each other (see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 23, p. 29, § 56). In the instant case, the distinction was made not between different groups of people, but between different types of offence, according to the legislature's view of their gravity (see Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 69, 8 July 1999). The Court, therefore, sees no ground for concluding that this practice amounts to a form of “discrimination” that is contrary to the Convention.

  37. Consequently, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

    38. V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

  38. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

    39. “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.”

    A.  Damage

  39. The applicants in application no. 9462/05 claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. As for pecuniary damage, the applicants Bülent Orman, Nedim Serihan and Ramazan Kayuk claimed EUR 18,000 each, whereas the applicant Nedim Orman claimed EUR 19,714.

  40. The applicant in application no. 20369/05 claimed EUR 18,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

  41. The applicant in application no. 32652/05 claimed EUR 33,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 50,000 in respect of non- pecuniary damage.

  42. The applicant in application no. 33193/05 claimed EUR 45,000 for non-pecuniary damage. As for pecuniary damage, he claimed EUR 25,000.

  43. The applicant in application no. 43845/05 claimed EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

  44. The applicant in application no. 5295/06 claimed EUR 25,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

  45. In application no 48090/08, the applicants Oktay Kalaç and İsmail Cengiz Oğurtan claimed EUR 15,000 each, whereas the applicant Mehmet Ferit Elatmış claimed EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

  46. The Government contested these claims.

  47. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects these claims. However, the Court considers that the applicants must have sustained non-pecuniary damage.

  48. In the light of the Court's jurisprudence and ruling on an equitable basis, it makes the following awards under this head in respect of the applicants' non-pecuniary damage:

  49. Furthermore, according to the information submitted by the parties, the criminal proceedings against the applicants in applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05 and 5295/06 are still pending. In these circumstances, the Court considers that an appropriate means for putting an end to the violations which it has found would be to conclude the criminal proceedings at issue as speedily as possible, while taking into account the requirements of the proper administration of justice (see Yakışan v. Turkey, no. 11339/03, § 49, 6 March 2007).

    50. B.  Costs and expenses

  50. The applicants in application no. 9462/05 claimed EUR 13,875 for legal fees and EUR 2,500 for cost and expenses.

  51. The applicant in application no. 20369/05 claimed 260 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately EUR 130) for costs and expenses. He also claimed TRY 4,720 (approximately EUR 2,380) in respect of lawyer's fee. In support of his claims he submitted a receipt for the legal fee paid.

  52. The applicant in application no. 32652/05 claimed EUR 8,550 for legal fees and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.

  53. The applicant in application no. 33193/05 claimed EUR 8,200 for costs and expenses. In support of his claims he submitted a table for costs and expenses.

  54. The applicant in application no. 43845/05 claimed TRY 260 (approximately EUR 130) for costs and expenses. He also claimed TRY 4,800 (approximately EUR 2,400) in respect of lawyer's fee. In support of his claims he submitted a receipt for the legal fee paid.

  55. The applicant in application no. 5295/06 claimed TRY 260 (approximately EUR 130) for costs and expenses. He also claimed TRY 4,800 (approximately EUR 2,400) in respect of lawyer's fee. In support of his claims he submitted a receipt for the legal fee paid.

  56. The applicant in application no. 48090/08 claimed TRY 1,500 (approximately EUR 760) for costs and expenses. He also claimed TRY 8,850 (approximately EUR 4,495) in respect of lawyer's fee. In support of his claims he submitted a legal fee agreement and a table of costs and expenses.

  57. The Government contested these claims.

  58. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria the Court makes the following awards under this head:

  59. In applications no. 9462/05 and 32652/05 the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses as the applicants did not produce any document in support of their claims.

    60. C.  Default interest

  60. The Court considers it appropriate that default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

    61. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

  61. Decides to join the applications;


  62. Declares the complaints concerning the length of pre-trial detention in respect of all applicants except the applicant Mehmet Ferit Elalmış (no. 48090/08); the lack of a remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the pre-trial detention brought by the applicants in applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05, 33193/05 and 48090/08; the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for an allegedly lengthy pre-trial detention brought by the applicants in applications nos. 43845/05 and 5295/06; the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicants in applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05, 33193/05, 5295/06 and 48090/08; the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the length of criminal proceedings brought by the applicants in applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05, 33193/05 and 5295/06 admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;


  63. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of all applicants except Mehmet Ferit Elalmış in application no. 48090/08;


  64. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05, 33193/05 and 48090/08;


  65. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 43845/05 and 5295/06;


  66. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05, 33193/05, 5295/06 and 48090/08;


  67. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 9462/05, 32652/05, 33193/05, 5295/06 and 48090/08;


  68. Holds

    69. (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants;

    (i)  EUR 9,400 (nine thousand four hundred euros) to each applicant in application no. 9462/05 for non-pecuniary damage;

    (ii)  EUR 8,500 (eight thousand five hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) for costs and expenses to the applicant in application no. 20369/05;

    (iii)  EUR 15,800 (fifteen thousand eight hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant in application no. 32652/05;

    (iv)  EUR 18,000 (eighteen thousand euros) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 (five hundred euros) in respect of cost and expenses to the applicant in application no. 33193/05;

    (v)  EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) for costs and expenses to the applicant in application no. 43845/05;

    (vi)  EUR 12,500 (twelve thousand five hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) for costs and expenses to the applicant in application no. 5295/06;

    (vii)  EUR 7,800 (seven thousand eight hundred euros) each to the applicants, Oktay Kalaç and İsmail Cengiz Oğurtan and EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to Mehmet Ferit Elalmış in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) jointly for costs and expenses in application no. 48090/08;

    (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;


  69. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction.

    70. Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 December 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

    Stanley Naismith Ireneu Cabral Barreto
    Registrar President

    Application no.

    Applicant

    Date of arrest

    Date of the order for the pre-trial detention

    Date of the bill of indictment

    Date of the judgments of the first instance court

    Date of the decisions of the Court of Cassation

    Date of the release of the applicant where applicable

    Total period of pre-trial detention (on the basis of the information in the case file)

    Grounds for continued detention (on the basis of the information in the case file)

    1- 9462/05 introduced on 21/01/2005, represented by Mükrime Avcı

    Nedim ORMAN

    19/03/1999

    25/03/1999

    05/04/1999

    1. İstanbul State Security Court (SSC) -25/09/2002 (E: 1999/121, K:2002/249)

    2. İstanbul Assize Court -07/09/2007 (E: 2003/167, K: 2007/361)

    1. 17/04/2003 (E: 2003/285, K: 2003/604) (set aside)

    2. Pending

    13/10/2004

    5 years (pre-trial detention)

    11 years and 7 months (proceedings)

    - the state of evidence
    - the nature of the offence
    - the overall period of the pre-trial detention
    - the content of the case file

    Ramazan KAYUK

    18/03/1999

    23/07/2004

    4 years and 9 months (pre-trial detention)

    11 years and 7 months (proceedings)

    Bülent ORMAN

    20/03/1999

    23/07/2004

    Same as above

    Nedim SERİHAN

    20/03/1999

    23/07/2004

    Same as above

    2- 20369/05 introduced on 16/05/2005, represented by Mihriban Kırdök

    Murat BAŞUSTA

    08/01/1999

    15/01/1999

    27/08/1999

    Pending before İstanbul Assize Court (E: 1999/328)

     

    21/02/2006

    7 years and 1 month (pre-trial detention)

    - the content of the case file
    - the state of the evidence
    - the nature of the offence
    - having not completed taking the testimony of all the accused

    3- 32652/05 introduced on 07/09/2005, represented by Mükrime Avci

    Tahsin ERİŞ

    31/01/1995

    15/02/1995

    24/04/1995

    İstanbul Assize Court -23/10/2008 (E: 1995/143, K: 2008/227)

     Pending

    10/03/ 2005

    10 years and 1 month (pre-trial detention)


    15 years and 8 months (proceedings)

    - the nature of the offence
    - the state of the evidence
    - the content of the case file

    4- 33193/05 introduced on 26/08/2005, represented by Mahsuni Karaman

    Mehmet Vahit AVCI

    17/01/1994

    7/02/1994

    17/03/1994

    1. Diyarbakır SSC -30/07/1997 (E: 1994/225, K:1997/219)

    2. Diyarbakır Assize Court - 09/03/2007 (E: 1999/88, K: 2007/76)

    1. 01/03/1999 (E:1998/2880, K:1999/110) (set aside)

    2. 07/03/2008 (E: 2007/9401, K: 2008/1363) (upheld)

     

    11 years and 6 months (pre-trial detention)


    14 years and 1 month (proceedings)

    - the nature of the offence
    - the state of the evidence
    - persistence of the grounds for continued detention indicated in Article 100 of the CCP

    5- 43845/05

    introduced on 14/11/2005, represented by Mihriban Kırdök

    Doğan AKÇİÇEK

    05/04/2001

    09/04/2001

    11/04/2001

    Pending before İstanbul Assize Court (E:2001/138)

     

    26/04/2006

    5 years (pre-trial detention)

    - the nature of the offence

    - the state of the evidence

    - the overall period of the pre-trial detention

    - having not collected the evidence yet

    6- 5295/06 introduced on 19/01/2006, represented by Mihriban Kırdök

    Erkan TEPELİ

    28/09/1996

    08/10/1996

    20/12/1996

    1. İstanbul State Security Court - 04/11/2002 (E:1996/444, K:2002/256)


    2. Pending before İstanbul Assize Court (E: 2004/248)

    28/06/2004 - (E: 2004/2171, K: 2004/3425) (set aside)

    28/09/2005

    7 years and 4 months (pre-trial detention)


    14 years (proceedings)

    - the content of the case file
    - the state of the evidence
    - the stage of the trial     (dosyanin geldigi asama)
    - the overall period of the pre-trial detention

    7- 48090/08 introduced on 20/09/2008, represented by Mehmet Erbil

    Oktay KALAÇ

    23/02/2003

    27/02/2003

    11/03/2003

    İstanbul Assize Court - 07/03/2008 (E: 2003/82, K: 2008/50)

    24/06/2009- (E: 2008/17940, K: 2009/7433) (upheld )

    _

    5 years (pre-trial detention)

    6 years and 4 months (proceedings)

    - the nature of the offence
    - the state of the evidence
    - the overall period of the pre-trial detention

    Mehmet Ferit ELALMIŞ

    23/02/2003

    13/06/2003

    3 months (pre-trial detention)

    6 years and 4 months (proceedings)

    İsmail Cengiz OĞURTAN

    25/02/2003

    _

    5 years (pre-trial detention)

    6 years and 4 months (proceedings)



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1963.html