Search
document

Document text Analytics

USANMAZ v. TURQUIE

Doc ref: 31859/96 • ECHR ID: 001-67704

Document date: December 9, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 3

USANMAZ v. TURQUIE

Doc ref: 31859/96 • ECHR ID: 001-67704

Document date: December 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 31859/96

by ismail Taki USANMAZ

against Turkey

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 9 December 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs G.H. THUNE, President

MM G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 8 March 1996 by

Ismail Taki Usanmaz against Turkey and registered on 12 June 1996 under

file No. 31859/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, born in 1956, is a Turkish citizen and resident

in Ankara. He is represented by Mr Ömer Öneren and Mustafa Balci,

lawyers practising in Ankara.

The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may

be summarised as follows.

On 5 April 1983 the applicant was arrested on account of crimes

he had allegedly committed under Articles 169 and 146 para. 3 of the

Turkish Penal Code. He was released nine months later.

On 5 December 1985 he was arrested again and detained on remand

on account of his being a member of an armed group whose aim was to

abolish the constitutional order. He was released in November 1986 as

he had been acquitted by the Ankara Martial Law Court.

He was therefore held in detention for 1 year and 8 months.

On 14 April 1994 the applicant obtained the reasoned judgment of

the Ankara Martial Law Court and filed an action requesting

compensation for unjustified detention in accordance with Law No. 466.

On 4 November 1994 the Ankara Assize Court granted compensation

of 50,000,000 Turkish Liras to the applicant.

The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of the court

as he considered the compensation insufficient.

On 21 November 1995 the Court of Cassation dismissed the

applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of the Ankara Assize Court.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 paras. 1, 3 and 5 of the

Convention that he was unjustly held in detention and that he was not

granted sufficient compensation.

2. He further complains of a violation of Article 3 of the

Convention in that the reasoned judgment of the Ankara Martial Law

Court which acquitted him was served on him very late and that he was

thus compelled to live as an accused for 11 years.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 paras. 1, 3 and 5

(Art. 5-1, 5-3, 5-5) of the Convention that he was unjustly held in

detention and that he was not granted sufficient compensation.

Insofar as the applicant complains under Article 5 paras. 1 and

3 (Art. 5-1, 5-3) of the Convention, the Commission notes that the

applicant was detained until November 1986 when he was acquitted by the

Ankara Martial Law Court.

However, Turkey has only recognised the competence of the

Commission to examine individual applications concerning facts which

occurred after 28 January 1987.

As the applicant's complaints relate to events occurring before

28 January 1987, this part of the application is outside the competence

of the Commission ratione temporis and must accordingly be rejected as

being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2. As regards the applicant's complaint under Article 5 para. 5

(Art. 5-5) of the Convention, the Commission recalls that the right to

compensation within the meaning of this provision presupposes that a

violation of one of the other paragraphs of Article 5 (Art. 5) has been

established, either by a domestic authority or by the Convention

institutions (see, for example, No. 22761/93, Dec. 14.4.94, D.R. 77 p.

98; No. 24722/94, Dec. 10.4.95, D.R. 81 p. 130).

The Commission notes that, while the applicant was acquitted and

even granted compensation for his detention, the Turkish courts did not

make any finding of a violation of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the

Convention.

Consequently, since in the present case no violation of any of

the provisions of Article 5 paras 1 to 4 (Art. 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4) has

been established, the compensation proceedings in 1994/95 do not fall

to be considered under Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is outside the

competence of the Commission ratione materiae and must accordingly be

rejected as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention,

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

3. The applicant further complains of a violation of Article 3

(Art. 3) of the Convention in that the reasoned judgment of the Ankara

Martial Law Court which acquitted him was served on him very late and

that he was thus compelled to live as an accused for 11 years.

However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not

the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a

violation of the Convention, in particular Articles 3 and 6 para. 1

(Art. 3, 6-1) thereof, as Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention

provides that the Commission "may only deal with a matter...within a

period of six months from the date on which the final decision was

taken".

In the present case, the Commission notes that the reasoned

judgment of the Ankara Martial Law Court was served on the applicant

on 14 April 1994, whereas the application was introduced with the

Commission on 8 March 1996, i.e. more than six months later.

It follows that this part of the application has been introduced

out of time and must therefore be rejected under Articles 26 and 27

para. 3 (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant