Hayrettin YILMAZ and Metin AKMESE and Others v Turkey - 27737/07 [2010] ECHR 813 (18 May 2010)


    BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

    No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
    Thank you very much for your support!



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

    European Court of Human Rights
    You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Hayrettin YILMAZ and Metin AKMESE and Others v Turkey - 27737/07 [2010] ECHR 813 (18 May 2010)
    URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/813.html
    Cite as: [2010] ECHR 813

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



    SECOND SECTION

    PARTIAL DECISION

    AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

    Applications nos. 27737/07, 18375/09 and 26070/09
    by Hayrettin YILMAZ and Metin AKMEŞE and Others
    against Turkey

    The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

    Françoise Tulkens, President,
     Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
     Dragoljub Popović,
     Nona Tsotsoria,
     Işıl Karakaş,
     Kristina Pardalos,
     Guido Raimondi, judges,
    and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,

    Having regard to the above applications lodged on 21 June 2007, 14 March 2009 and 8 May 2009,

    Having deliberated, decides as follows:

    THE FACTS

    The applicants are Turkish nationals, who were arrested on suspicion of involvement in an illegal organisation. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were brought against them, which are, according to the information in the case files, currently pending before the domestic courts.

    The information concerning the applications, the dates of the applicants' arrest, bills of indictment, decisions of the domestic courts and the total length of the proceedings, as submitted by the applicants, is detailed in the annexed table.

    COMPLAINTS

    1.  Yılmaz and Akmeşe v. Turkey (no. 27737/07)

    The applicants alleged under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against them had exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement and that there had been no remedy provided by the domestic law enabling them to request the acceleration of their cases.

    The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they had not been tried by an impartial court because of the special jurisdiction of State Security Courts and the procedure related to the appointment of judges.

    Relying on the same provision of the Convention, they further complained that the principle of equality of arms had been disregarded due to the alleged denial of their right to legal assistance at the initial stage of the proceedings.

    2.  Çoban v. Turkey (no. 18375/09)

    Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that the length of the proceedings against him had been excessive.

    Relying on Article 6 §§ 1, 2, 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and 3(d) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had not been tried by an impartial court and had not been afforded the procedural guarantees of an accused person. He further maintained that the prosecuting authorities had solely collected the evidence against him, on which the trial court had relied exclusively. He next contended that his rights of defence had been violated as a result of the alleged lack of legal assistance at the initial stage of the proceedings.

    Lastly, the applicant argued under Article 13 of the Convention that there had been no effective domestic remedy which he could have pursued for his aforementioned complaints.

    3.  Aktaş and Paliağa v. Turkey (no. 26070/09)

    Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against them and the alleged absence of a domestic remedy in that respect.

    THE LAW

  1. In view of the similarity of the cases, the Court finds it appropriate to join and examine them together.

  2. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against them. In addition the applicants claimed under Article 13 of the Convention that there had been no effective remedy in the domestic law by which they could have challenged the allegedly undue delay in their cases.

    3. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case files, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of these parts of the applications to the respondent Government.

  3. The applicants in the applications nos. 27737/07 and 18375/09 complained under various provisions of Article 6 of the Convention that they had been denied a fair hearing as their procedural rights had not been respected in the criminal proceedings.

    4. Referring to the information in the annexed table, the Court notes that the criminal proceedings against the applicants are currently pending before the domestic courts. These complaints are, therefore, premature. Consequently, this part of the applications must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, for example, Koç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36686/07, 26 February 2008).

    For these reasons, the Court unanimously

    Decides to join the applications;

    Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants' complaints concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against them and the alleged lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect;

    Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.


    Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
    Registrar President





    Information concerning the application




    Representatives




    Applicants

    Date of arrest

    Date of the bill of indictment

    Date of the judgments of the first-instance court



    Date of the judgment of the Court of Cassation


    Total length of proceedings (on the basis of the information in the case file)

    1- 27737/07, lodged on 21 June 2007




    Mehmet Erbil


    1-Hayrettin Yılmaz


    25 February 2001

    14 March 2001

    1- 14 May 2003 (4th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court)


    1- 01 February 2005 (set aside)

    8 years and 8 months (until the applicants' letter of 5 October 2009)


    2-Metin Akmeşe


    28 February 2001

    2-23 May 2008 (12th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court, 2005/48 E, 2008/141 K)


    2- Pending

    2- 18375/09, lodged on 14 March 2009




    Gül Atalay and Hakan Karakuş




    Erdoğan Çoban




    28 December 2001

    24 April 2001 and

    31 December 2001


    1- 3 December 2003 (3rd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court)


    20 August 2004 (set aside)

    7 years and 3 months (until the date of introduction)

    2- Pending (before the 11th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court, 2004/273E)


    3- 26070/09, lodged on 08 May 2009





    Mehmet Erbil



    1-Abdullah Aktaş





    25 February 2001


    14 March 2001

    1- 14 May 2003 (4th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court)


    1-01 February 2005 (set aside)

    8 years and 3 months (until the date of introduction)

    2-Zeynelabidin Paliağa

    2- 23 May 2008 (12th  Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court, 2005/48 E, 2008/141 K)

    2- Pending



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/813.html