Search
document

Document text Analytics

AKIN v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 34688/97 • ECHR ID: 001-3910

Document date: September 11, 1997

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

AKIN v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 34688/97 • ECHR ID: 001-3910

Document date: September 11, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 34688/97

by Abdullah AKIN

against Turkey

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 11 September 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President

MM. J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

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 21 August 1996 by

Abdullah Akin against Turkey and registered on 30 January 1997 under

file No. 34688/97;

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 applicant, born in 1967, is a Turkish citizen of Kurdish

origin and resident in Diyarbakir. He is represented before the

Commission by Mr. Mahmut Vefa, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakir.

The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may

be summarised as follows.

The applicant is the provincial president of the political party,

HADEP, in Diyarbakir.

On 23 June 1996 the applicant went to Ankara to participate in

the second party congress of HADEP. During the congress the Turkish

flag was taken down by some of the party militants who had participated

in the congress.

On 24 June 1996, at 3 a.m., the applicant was arrested by

policemen on the ground that the Turkish flag was taken down during the

congress. He was taken to the Anti-Terror branch of Ankara Security

Directorate to be questioned. During custody he was not allowed to

consult his legal representative and was subjected to insults, such as

being called a "traitor".

On 4 July 1996, after 11 days of police custody, the applicant

was brought before a judge at the Ankara State Security Court and was

remanded in detention by the court. The applicant filed an objection

with the court and he has been released pending trial on 12 July 1996.

On 23 August 1996 the Public Prosecutor attached to Ankara State

Security Court instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant

and other members of the HADEP. The applicant was accused under Article

168 para. 1 of the Turkish Penal Code of being a member of the

terrorist organisation, the PKK. The proceedings are still pending

before the Ankara State Security Court.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 paras. 1(c), 2, 3 of the

Convention that he was held in police custody for an excessive length

of time without being brought before a judge and that he was not

informed of the nature of the accusations against him. In conjunction

with Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant also complains that

he was deprived of his above-mentioned rights because he was Kurdish

and affiliated to the HADEP.

2. He complains under Article 6 para. 3(a), (b), (c), (d) of the

Convention that he was not informed in detail of the nature of the

accusation against him, that he was deprived of his right to legal

assistance and that he was deprived of facilities for the preparation

of his defence. In conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, the

applicant also complains that he was deprived of his above-mentioned

rights because he was Kurdish and affiliated to the HADEP.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 paras. 1(c), 2, 3

(Art. 5-1-c, 5-2, 5-3) of the Convention that he was held in police

custody for an excessive length of time without being brought before

a judge and that he was not informed of the nature of the accusations

brought against him. The applicant also alleges a violation of Article

5 in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 5+14) of the Convention that he

was deprived of his above-mentioned rights since he was Kurdish and

affiliated to HADEP.

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

file, determine the admissibility of these 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

respondent Government.

2. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 3(a), (b), (c), (d)

(Art. 6-3-a, 6-3-b, 6-3-c, 6-3-d) of the Convention that he was not

informed in detail of the nature of the accusation against him, that

he was deprived of his right to legal assistance and that he was

deprived of facilities for the preparation of his defence. In

conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention, the applicant

also complains that he was deprived of his above-mentioned rights since

he was Kurdish and affiliated to the HADEP.

The Commission notes that the criminal proceedings brought

against the applicant are still pending before the State Security

Court.

However, according to its established case-law, the Commission

deems it necessary to take into consideration the entire criminal

proceedings brought against the applicant in order to decide whether

they conform to the requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention (e.g. Nos. 23878/94, 23879/94, 23880/94, 23881/94, 23882/94,

23883/94, Dec. 25.5.95, D.R. 81-B, p. 94). The Commission therefore

notes that as the applicant has not yet been convicted he still has at

his disposal the possibility of submitting his complaints before the

domestic courts. In this regard, the applicant's complaints under

Article 6 (Art. 6) appear to be premature. Besides, the Commission

recalls that, after the final ruling is given in domestic law, the

applicant may re-submit his complaints to the Commission if he still

considers himself victim of the alleged violations.

It follows that this part of the application should be rejected

as 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 examination of the applicant's

complaints concerning the length of his detention without being

brought before a judge and his complaints that he was not

informed of the accusations brought against him and that he was

discriminated against on the ground of his Kurdish origin.

unanimously,

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G. H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant