FIRST SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 31312/96

by Erkan EĞİNLİOĞLU

against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ) sitting on 11 January 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mrs E. Palm, President , Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, Mr Gaukur Jörundsson, Mr R. Türmen, Mr B. Zupančič, Mr T. Panţîru, Mr R. Maruste, judges ,

and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar ;

Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 22 April 1995 by Erkan EÄŸinlioÄŸlu against Turkey and registered on 2 May 1996 under file no. 31312/96;

Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 14 April 1998;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Turkish national, born in 1952 and living in Ankara.

He is represented before the Court by Mr Fehmi Koç , a lawyer practising in Ankara.

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

On 12 September 1984 policemen from the Ankara Security Directorate arrested the applicant on suspicion of his membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol ( Revolutionary Way ).

On 26 October 1984 the Ankara Martial Law Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.

On 26 December 1984 and 10 May 1985 the Military Public Prosecutor filed two bills of indictment with the Ankara Martial Law Court against the applicant. He accused the applicant of membership of the Dev-Yol , whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime, contrary to Article 146 § 3 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The Public Prosecutor further alleged, inter alia , that the applicant had been involved in a number of crimes such as a bomb attack on a coffeehouse , opening fire on a house and several robberies.

On 26 May 1986 the applicant was released pending trial.

On 19 July 1989 the Ankara Martial Law Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment on account of his membership of an illegal armed organisation (Article 168 § 2). The applicant lodged an appeal with the Military Court of Cassation against this judgment.

On 26 December 1994 the jurisdiction of the martial law courts was abolished and the Court of Cassation acquired jurisdiction over the case.

On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation held that the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time ‑ barred.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings instituted against him were not determined within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

PROCEDURE

The application was introduced on 22 April 1995 and registered on 2 May 1996.

On 21 October 1998 the European Commission of Human Rights decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him to the respondent Government and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible.

The Government’s written observations were submitted on 14 April 1999.

These observations were sent to the applicant’s representative on 26 April 1999. He was invited to submit his observations before 21 June 1999.

On 26 July and 27 September 1999 the Section Registrar wrote to the applicant’s representative indicating that no reply had been received to the letter of 26 April 1999. He was reminded that, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court may strike the application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.

On 8 November 1999 copies of the letters of 26 July and 27 September 1999 were sent to the applicant personally.

On 9 November 1999 the applicant sent a letter to the Registry of the Court stating that he intended to pursue his application.

On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings instituted against him were not concluded within a “reasonable time” as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant:

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

According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings – a period of almost 11 years – is in breach of the “reasonable time” requir ement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The Government refute the allegation. They point out that, pursuant to former Article 25 of the Convention, Turkey has accepted the competence of the Commission to examine individual petitions only in respect of facts or events that have occurred since 28 January 1987.

As regards the merits of the case, the Government highlight the complexity of the case and the nature of the offence with which the applicant was charged. They further argue that the courts dealt with a trial involving 723 defendants, including the applicant, whose activities and connections had to be established. The Government claim therefore that there was no negligence or delay imputable to the judicial authorities.

The Court notes that the applicant did not send any observations in reply to the Government’s.

The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant ’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.             

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.

Michael O’Boyle Elisabeth Palm Registrar President