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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Hasan TILKI v Turkey - 39420/08 [2011] ECHR 1224 (5 July 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1224.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1224 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
39420/08
by Hasan TİLKİ
against
Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5 July 2011 as a Committee composed of:
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
President,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
Guido
Raimondi, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 August 2008,
Having regard to the partial decision adopted on 6 July 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Hasan Tilki, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Muş. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
According to the submissions in the case file, on 10 February 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation.
On 17 February 2000 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, who subsequently ordered his pre-trial detention.
On 3 July 2000 the public prosecutor at the Adana State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and nine other persons on the charge of attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force.
On 28 July 2000, in his defence submissions to the trial court, the applicant reaffirmed the statements he had made before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge.
Following the abolition of State Security Courts by Law no. 5190, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were resumed by the 7th Division of the Adana Assize Court.
In the light of the evidence before it, on 18 October 2004 the first-instance court convicted the applicant of attempting to undermine the constitutional order and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
On 20 June 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed that judgment both on the merits and on procedural grounds, and remitted the case to the first-instance court for further examination.
On 8 October 2007 the public prosecutor at the Adana Assize Court filed a new bill of indictment against the applicant on charges of murder and abduction.
On 10 October 2007 the first-instance court once more convicted the applicant as charged.
On 30 April 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction.
THE LAW
The applicant complained, in substance, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ... ”
By letter dated 14 February 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“Je déclare que le Gouvernement de la République de Turquie offre de verser au requérant, M. Hasan Tilki, la somme de 5 000 (cinq mille) euros, couvrant tout préjudice matériel et moral, somme qu’il considère comme appropriée à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour.
Cette somme sera convertie en livres turques au taux applicable à la date du paiement, et exempte de toute taxe éventuellement applicable. Elle sera payée dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision de la Cour rendue conformément à l’article 37 § 1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. A défaut de règlement dans ledit délai, le Gouvernement s’engage à verser, à compter de l’expiration de celui-ci et jusqu’au règlement effectif de la somme en question, un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage. Ce versement vaudra règlement définitif de l’affaire.
Le Gouvernement considère que la procédure interne engagée par la partie requérante a connu une durée excessive au sens de la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour (Daneshpayeh c. Turquie, no 21086/04, 16 juillet 2009). Il invite respectueusement la Cour à dire qu’il ne se justifie plus de poursuivre l’examen de la requête et à la rayer du rôle conformément à l’article 37 de la Convention.”
In a letter of 11 March 2011 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, § 33, ECHR 2005 IX; Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, § 24, 18 July 2006; Kalanyos and Others v. Romania, no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007; Stark and Others v. Finland (striking out), no. 39559/02, § 23, 9 October 2007; Silva Marrafa v Portugal (dec.) no. 56936/08, 25 May 2010; and Karal c. Turquie (dec.) no. 44655/09, 29 March 2011).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000 VII; Tendik and Others v. Turkey, no. 23188/02, § 31, 22 December 2005; Ebru and Tayfun Engin Çolak v. Turkey, no. 60176/00, §§ 80-81, 30 May 2006; Ayık v. Turkey, no. 10467/02, § 26, 21 October 2008; and Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 28-29, 16 July 2009).
In its unilateral declaration, the Government recognizes that the length of criminal proceedings in question exceeded the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and proposes to pay the sum of EUR 5,000 as compensation for moral and material damages.
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Françoise Elens-Passos David
Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy
Registrar President