FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 58336/00 by Kemal AKYÃœZ against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr G. Bonello , Mr R. Türmen , Mr K. Traja , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 December 1999,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together ,

Having regard to the partial decision of 31 March 2005 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Kemal Akyüz , is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Bursa . He was represen ted before the Court by Mr K.T. Sürek , a lawyer practising in Istanbul .

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

On 4 February 1994 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Samsun Security Directorate. On the same day he was detained on remand.

On 25 March 1994 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with membership of an illegal organisation, the DHKP-C, contrary to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.

On 7 December 1997 the Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicant, who was represented by four lawyers during the proceedings, as charged and sentenced him to fifteen years ’ imprisonment.

On 2 December 1998 one of the applicant ’ s lawyers filed an appeal with the Court of Cassation against the judgment of 7 December 1997.

On 27 April 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court ’ s judgment.

On 20 May 1999 the Court of Cassation ’ s decision was deposited with the registry of the Ankara State Security Court .

On 1 September 1999 the committal order ( müddetname ) concerning the execution of his sentence was served on the applicant.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court.

THE LAW

The applicant alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was not tried by an independent and impartial court as there was a military judge sitting on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court.

The Government argue d that the applicant ’ s complaint was inadmissible as the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month rule laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They submit ted in this connection that the Court of Cassation ’ s decision had been deposited with the registry of the Ankara State Security Court on 20 May 1999 whereas the application had been lodged with the Court on 7 December 1999.

The Court reiterates that where an applicant is not entitled to be served ex officio with a written copy of the final domestic decision and if she or he was represented by a lawyer during the domestic proceedings, as in the present case, the date on which the final domestic decision was deposited with the registry of the first- instance court should be taken as the starting-point, being the latest date on which the applicant or his or her representative was definitively able to find out about the content of the final decision at th e latest (see Ipek v. Turkey ( dec .), no. 39706/98, 7 November 2000 ; Yavuz and Others v. Turkey ( dec .), no. 48064/99, 1 February 2005 ; and Levent Öztürk v. Turkey ( dec .), no. 8428/02, 1 0 October 2006).

The Court observes that, in the instant case, the Court of Cassation ’ s decision was deposited with the registry of the first- instance court on 20 May 1999, whereas the application was lodged with the Court on 7 December 1999. It therefore finds that the application has been introduced out of time and must be reje cted in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

Consequently, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the present case should be discontinued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President