SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 36459/06 by Metin YAPAN against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8 December 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens , President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky , Dragoljub Popović , Nona Tsotsoria , Işıl Karakaş , Kristina Pardalos , judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 August 2006,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Metin Yapan , is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Ä°zmir.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In 16 April 1995 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP-C ( Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Partisi-Cephesi ; the Revolutionary People ’ s Liberation Party-Front). Subsequently, on 26 April 1995 he was placed in detention on remand.

On 17 September 1998 the applicant was released pending trial. On 30 December 1998 the Ä°zmir State Security Court acquitted him.

On 1 April 1999 the applicant applied to the Karşıyaka Assize Court , seeking compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained.

On 9 June 2003 the Karşıyaka Assize Court awarded the applicant TRL 447,078,510 for pecuniary damage and TRL 5,000,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

On 11 June 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment with a minor amendment [1] . The final decision was deposited with the first-instance court ’ s registry on 3 September 2004.

The applicant informed the Court that in 2007 he was paid the compensation.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 5, the applicant complained about the unlawfulness and the length of his pre-trial detention.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial had been breached. Firstly, he complained that he had not been afforded an oral hearing in the determination of his compensation claim. Secondly, he considered that the amount of compensation awarded by the domestic courts was too low. Thirdly, he maintained that the public prosecutor ’ s written opinion had not been communicated to him during the proceedings.

Invoking Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant argued that the principle of the presumption of innocence had been violated by the courts.

The applicant further alleged under Article 13 of the Convention that Law no. 466 did not provide an effective remedy.

Finally, the applicant submitted under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that, at a time when the inflation rate in Turkey had been very high, the compensation awarded under Law no. 466 was not subject to default interest. He concluded therefore that his right to property had been breached due to the late payment of his compensation without any interest.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the authorities had delayed paying the compensation awarded to him by the Karşıyaka Assize Court and that no default interest had been applied to the main amount despite the high rate of inflation at the time.

Invoking Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant maintained that Law no. 466 did not provide an effective remedy.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of th ese complaint s and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rul es of Court, to give notice of them to the respondent Government.

2. The Court has also examined the remainder of the applicant ’ s complaint s as submitted by him . However, having regard to the material in its possession, it finds that those complaints were introduced out of the six-month period . It follows that this part of the application must be rejected for non-compliance with the six-month rule , pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant ’ s complaints concerning his right to the protection of his property and the right to an effective remedy ;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

             Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise Tulkens Deputy Registrar President

[1] 1. TRL 5,447,078,510 was equivalent to 3,056 euros on 11 June 2004.