FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 47043/99 by Mehmet YAVUZ against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 October 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mr R. Türmen , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi, judges , and Mr M. O ' Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 February 1999 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mehmet Yavuz, who was born in 1965, is a Turkish national. He was serving his prison sentence in the Diyarbakır prison at the time of his application to the Court. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Çınar, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır .

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

On 8 November 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of the PKK.

On 26 November 1993 he was brought before a judge who ordered his detention on remand.

On 23 December 1993 the chief public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code with carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.

On 22 July 1997 the chief public prosecutor amended the indictment concerning the applicant and accused him under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation.

On 23 March 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant of membership of the PKK under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no . 3713 . The first-instance court sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months ' imprisonment and permanently debarred him from employment in the civil service. The applicant appealed.

On 17 February 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court .

COMPLAINT S

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand was excessive.

He further contends under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him were not concluded within a reasonable time.

The applicant lastly submits under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the excessive length of detention on remand violated his right to presumption of innocence.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains about the excessive length of his detention on remand. He invokes Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads:

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant alleges that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him exceeded a reasonable time in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides as follows:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

3. The applicant contends that Article 6 § 2 of the Convention was violated in his case on account of the unreasonable length of his detention on remand. Article 6 § 2 of the Convention provides as follows:

“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

The Court reiterates that the detention of a person on remand in itself constitutes a restriction of the principle of the presumption of innocence. It further reiterates that continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty. Accordingly, Article 5 § 3 of the Convention also protects, indirectly, the principle of the presumption of innocence, to which it constitutes an essential complement. Consequently, no separate issue normally arises under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in cases concerning the length of detention on remand, since in such cases the aim of ensuring respect for that principle is attained through Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Olstowski v. Poland (dec.) , no. 34052/96, 15 February 2001 and Labita v. Italy , judgment of 6 April 2000, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-IV, § 152) .

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant ' s complaints concerning the length of the applicant ' s detention on remand and the criminal proceedings against him ;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Michael O ' Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President