PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 32580/96

by Ahmet KOÇ

against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section) sitting on 30 March 1999 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C. Rozakis , President ,

Mr M. Fischbach ,

Mr R. Türmen ,

Mrs V. Strážnická ,

Mr P. Lorenzen ,

Mr A.B. Baka ,

Mr E. Levits , Judges ,

with Mr E. Fribergh, 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 6 June 1996 by Ahmet KOÇ  against Turkey and registered on 8 August 1996 under file no. 32580/96;

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

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Turkish national, born in 1953 and living in Ankara. He was a civil servant at the time of the events.

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

On 17 February 1981 the applicant, accused of being a member of the illegal organisation called the Dev-Yol “Revolutionary Way” was taken into police custody in Ankara. On 15 April 1981 he was placed in detention on remand by order of the judge of the Ankara Martial Law Court.

On 26 February 1982 the Ankara Military Court Prosecutor started criminal proceedings in the Ankara Martial Law Court against the applicant. He 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 prosecution called for the applicant to be convicted and sentenced pursuant to Section 168 of the Turkish Criminal Code for founding or being a member of an armed organisation against the security of the state.

During the court hearings the applicant denied the statements he had made to the police and alleged that they had been made under duress.

On 31 December 1983 the applicant was released pending trial.

On 19 July 1989 the Ankara Martial Law Court found the applicant guilty as charged and rejected the allegation that his statement in police custody had been made under duress. It held that the applicant’s statements were verified and corroborated by the statements of other persons accused. Consequently, the court sentenced the applicant to six years and eight months’ imprisonment and permanently debarred him from employment in the civil service.

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

Pursuant to law No. 3953 promulgated on 27 December 1993, the case-file was transferred to the Court of Cassation , a non-military court. On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation revised the judgment of the first-instance court and decided that the court had failed to apply all legal provisions relevant to the crime in question. The Court of Cassation finally sentenced the applicant to five years’ imprisonment and debarred him from public service for three years.

On 23 May 1996 the applicant was dismissed from his post in the Ministry of Education and Culture due to his conviction.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention. He complains that the criminal proceedings brought against him were not concluded within a reasonable time.

He further complains that his case was not heard by an independent and impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In this regard he submits that t he martial court was composed of five members, including two military judges and one army officer without any legal training, all three of whom were accountable to the military superiors.

He also alleges that he did not have a fair trial as the courts based their reasoning on the statements, which he had made to the police under duress. In this regard he invokes Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention.

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

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him were not concluded within a reasonable time. He further complains that the martial court, which convicted him, was not an independent and impartial tribunal. Finally, he also alleges that he did not have a fair trial as the criminal courts, which convicted him based their reasoning on the statements, which he had made to the police under duress.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 para. 3(b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of them to the respondent Government.

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

The Court notes that the applicant was placed in detention on remand on 15 April 1981 and he was released on 31 December 1983 pending trial.

The Court recalls that according to the Turkish Government’s declaration, made on 28 January 1987, pursuant to Article 25 of the Convention (now Article 34 of the Convention), the Court’s competence to examine individual petitions extends only to facts and judgments based on events occurring after that date. The Court notes that the above complaint concerns a period, which is prior to 28 January 1987.

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

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning his right to a fair trial, the criminal proceedings and independence and impartiality of martial courts;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis

Registrar President