Search
document

Document text Analytics

SANLI AND EROL v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 36760/97 • ECHR ID: 001-4348

Document date: July 1, 1998

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

SANLI AND EROL v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 36760/97 • ECHR ID: 001-4348

Document date: July 1, 1998

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 36760/97

by Hasan Sanli and Fatma Erol

against Turkey

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 1 July 1998, the following members being present:

MM J.-C. GEUS, President

M.A. NOWICKI

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

I. CABRAL BARRETO

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 26 May 1997 by

Hasan Sanli and Fatma Erol against Turkey and registered on 1 July 1997

under file No. 36760/97;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Turkish citizens. The first applicant, Hasan

Sanli, was born in 1971 in istanbul and the second applicant, Fatma

Erol, was born in 1972 in Tunceli. They both reside in istanbul. They

are represented before the Commission by Mr Özcan Kiliç who is a lawyer

practising in istanbul.

The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicants,

may be summarised as follows.

On 14 November 1996 the applicants were taken into custody by the

anti-terrorism department of the istanbul security forces on the ground

that they had participated in the activities of a terrorist

organisation.

On 15 November 1996 statements from the applicants were taken at

the police headquarters.

On 27 November 1996 the applicants were brought before the Public

Prosecutor attached to istanbul State Security Court. The Public

Prosecutor took statements from the applicants and released them.

On 12 December 1996 the Public Prosecutor decided not to start

criminal proceedings against the applicants.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention

that, when arrested, they were not brought promptly before a judge.

They also allege under Article 14 of the Convention, in

conjunction with Article 5 para. 3, that there was a difference between

the length of time for which persons may lawfully be held in police

custody in State Security Court proceedings and in ordinary criminal

proceedings.

2. The applicants further submit under Article 3 of the Convention

that they were subjected to verbal abuse while in police custody.

3. The applicants allege under Article 6 of the Convention that

their right to a fair trial was violated in that they were not assisted

by lawyers during their police custody and that they were described as

"terrorists" by the police.

THE LAW

1. The applicants complain that the length of their police custody

was excessive. They invoke in this regard Article 5 (Art. 5) of the

Convention. They submit that they were taken into custody on 14

November 1996 and were released on 27 November 1996. They allege that

after their arrest they were not brought promptly before a judge.

The applicants also complain under Article 14 of the Convention

in conjunction with Article 5 (Art. 14+5) that there is a

discriminatory difference between proceedings in State Security Courts

and in the ordinary criminal courts as regards the length of

permissible police custody.

The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the

file, determine the admissibility of the complaints and that it is

therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the

Rules of Procedure, to give notice of these complaints to the

Government.

2. The applicants further allege under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention that they were subjected to verbal abuse by the police

during their detention.

The Commission may leave open the question whether the applicants

have exhausted domestic remedies in this respect as their complaint

must in any event be rejected for the following reasons.

The Commission notes that, to fall within the scope of the

provision, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity,

taking into account all the circumstances. The Commission also notes

that the facts alleged to constitute a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3)

must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (D.R. 79, No.18764/91, p. 23).

The Commission recalls that under certain circumstances it can

be difficult to prove verbal abuse during police custody, but that the

applicants must at least indicate in precise terms the treatment of

which they complain and the circumstances in which they were exposed

to this treatment. No such indication has been provided in this case.

(No. 28518/95, Dec. 30.6.1997, unpublished)

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

3. The applicants complain under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention that their right to a fair trial was violated in that they

were not assisted by lawyers during their police custody and that they

were described as "terrorists" by the police.

It is true that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention secures to

everyone charged with a criminal offence the right to a fair and public

hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

The Commission notes, however, that the Public Prosecutor did not

start any criminal proceedings against the applicants. Therefore, the

applicants cannot claim to be victims of the alleged violation

according to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.

Furthermore the Commission has not found any evidence in the file

to show that the authorities made any statements concerning the

applicants' guilt.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as

being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para.2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the applicants' complaints relating to the

length of their police custody,

unanimously,

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant