Search
document

Document text Analytics

ERDAGÖZ v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 25126/94 • ECHR ID: 001-3555

Document date: April 9, 1997

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

ERDAGÖZ v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 25126/94 • ECHR ID: 001-3555

Document date: April 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 25126/94

by Mehmet Erdagöz

against Turkey

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 9 April 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, 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 17 August 1994 by

Mehmet Erdagöz against Turkey and registered on 13 September 1994 under

file No. 25126/94;

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 is a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born

in 1955 and resides in Kars.

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

be summarised as follows.

At about 2 p.m. on 16 September 1992 the applicant applied to the

police station in Adana and he complained that his shop's windows were

broken by an attack. He also indicated the identity of the persons whom

he suspected of being responsible for the attack. The policemen wanted

the applicant to bring evidence or witness. The applicant left the

police station and after two hours he returned with two bullets which

he claimed to have found in his shop. A police team went to the shop

to check the applicant's allegations. The policemen drew up a report.

They found no evidence of shots having been fired into the applicant's

shop and the same day the applicant was placed in custody on account

of producing false evidence.

On 17 September 1992 the applicant was released at an unspecified

time.

On 17 September 1992 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint

against the police officers E.T. and S.K. for false imprisonment and

defamation.

On 6 December 1993 the Public Prosecutor of Adana made an order

discontinuing the proceedings against the police officers in respect

of the complaint lodged by the applicant. The Public Prosecutor found

that, on the basis of the applicant's criminal record and the suspicion

that he had produced false evidence, he had been detained for twenty

four hours in the police station in order to be questioned for the

purposes of the investigation of the case.

On 18 february 1994 the applicant appealed to the President of

the Assize Court against the order discontinuing the proceedings.

On 7 April 1994 the President of the Tarsus Assize Court (Adana)

dismissed the applicant's appeal.

On 13 April 1994 the applicant requested a written order from the

Minister of Justice in order to bring an appeal before the Court of

Cassation.

On 4 July 1994 the applicant's request was rejected by the

Minister of Justice.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of the violations of the Articles 3 and

5 of the Convention.

As to Article 3, the applicant complains that he was subjected

to ill-treatment during police custody. In particular, he alleges that

he was tortured by the policemen who had hosed him with compressed

water and had not allowed him to sleep.

As to Article 5, the applicant complains that he was deprived of

his liberty due to the police custody which lasted 48 hours.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that he was deprived of his liberty and

subjected to ill-treatment during police custody which lasted 48 hours.

However, the Commission recalls that, by virtue of Article 27

para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, the Commission may not

deal with an application if it contains "substantially the same facts

and complaints" as an application previously examined by it (No.

8206/78, Dec. 10.7.81, D.R. 25, p. 150).

The Commission notes that the applicant in a previous application

(No. 21890/93) has presented substantially the same facts and

complaints, supported moreover by copies of same decisions. This

application is currently pending before the Court.

It follows that this application must be rejected in accordance

with Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant