SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 40156/98 by Mahmut KESKÄ°N against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 9 March 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,

Mr M. Fischbach,

Mr B. Conforti,

Mr. R. Türmen,

Mr P. Lorenzen,

Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,

Mr A.B. Baka, judges,

and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 March 1997 and registered on 9 March 1998,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Turkish national, born in 1956 and living in Ordu . He is represented before the Court by Mr Haluk Türkmen , a lawyer practising in Ordu .

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

On 14 November 1980 the applicant, accused of being a member of the illegal organisation Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way), was taken into police custody in Fatsa . On 18 February 1981 he was placed in detention on remand.

In 1982 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Erzincan Martial Law Court against the applicant along with other defendants. The applicant was accused of being a member of an illegal organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. The public prosecutor further alleged that the applicant had been involved in a number of crimes such as the killing of N.K., a non-commissioned officer. He was charged under Article 146 § 3 of the Turkish Criminal Code.

The applicant was released on 24 August 1988.

On 24 August 1988 the Martial Law Court convicted the applicant of the charges against him and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment, pursuant to Article 146 § 3 of the Turkish Criminal Code.

Following the appeal, the applicant’s case was referred to the Military Court of Cassation .

Pursuant to Law No. 3953, which was promulgated on 27 December 1993, the case-file was transferred to the Court of Cassation , a non-military court. On 3 July 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first-instance court on the ground that the court had failed to apply the legal provisions relevant to the crime in question.

On 24 June 1997 the Ankara Assize Court, to which the case had been remitted, ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time limit under Section 102 of the Turkish Criminal Code had expired.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment whilst he was held in police custody.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 5 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand.

3. The applicant alleges that the criminal proceedings brought against him were not concluded within a reasonable time, as required by Article 6 of the Convention.

4. The applicant submits that he was charged before the national courts on account of his political opinions. In this respect, he invokes Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1 . The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment while he was held in police custody.

The Court notes that the police custody of the applicant ended on 18 February 1981.

The Court recalls that according to the Turkish Government’s declaration, made on 28 January 1987, pursuant to former Article 25 of the Convention, the Commission’s competence to examine individual petitions extended only to facts and judgments based on events occurring after that date. The Court notes that the above complaint concerns a period prior to 28 January 1987.

Consequently, this part of the application is outside the Court’s competence ratione temporis and must accordingly be rejected as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

2. The applicant complains about the excessive length of his detention on remand under Article 5 of the Convention.

The Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 35 of the Convention, it may only deal with an application within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. In the absence of domestic remedies, the six-month period runs from the act complained of.

The Court observes that in the present case, the applicant was released from detention on remand on 24 August 1988, whereas the application was introduced with the Court on 4 March 1997, i.e. more than six months later.

It follows that this part of the application is introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

3. The applicant alleges that the criminal proceedings brought against him were not concluded within a reasonable time, as required by Article 6 of the Convention.

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 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

4. The applicant submits that he was charged before the national courts on account of his political opinions. In this respect, he invokes Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention.

The Court observes that the charges against the applicant were withdrawn on the ground that the statutory time-limit under Section 102 of the Turkish Criminal Code had expired.

The Court recalls that the withdrawal of criminal proceedings instituted against an applicant constitutes a redress of any violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention (Eur. Comm. H.R., No. 5575/72, Dec. 8.7.1974, D.R. 1 p. 44.).

Accordingly, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim in respect of these matters.

In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant ’s complaint about the length of criminal proceedings;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

S. Dollé C. Rozakis Registrar              President