SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 29628/09 Hikmet KÖSEOĞLU against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 17 February 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Nebojša Vučinić, President ,

Paul Lemmens,

Egidijus KÅ«ris, judges ,

and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 April 2009 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Hikmet Köseoğlu , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Uşak . He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Türkmen , a lawyer practising in Uşak .

The circumstances of the case

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

3. The applicant worked as a police officer. On 19 November 2008 the Uşak Magistrates ’ Court ordered tapping of the applicant ’ s phone on account of the authorities ’ suspicion that the applicant had been engaging in money counterfeiting.

4. On 13 December 2008 police officers from the Organised Crime Department, upon having receiv ed information that the applicant would be transporting counterfeit money in his car, stopped the car for a search. The applicant did not consent to the search without a search order and asked the police officers to provide a warrant. A few hours later , during which time the applicant, his wife, daughter and another relative F.D. who had also been travelling in the car were asked to stay next to the car, a warrant was issued by the prosecutor for the search of the applicant ’ s car and the body search of the applicant and the relative F.D. The applicant ’ s vehicle was then searched by the police officers who then proceeded to conduct a body search not only on the applicant and his relative F.D., but also on the applicant ’ s daughter and wife. An unlicensed firearm was found in the applicant ’ s car and was seized.

5. On 15 December 2008 the applicant lodged criminal complaints against the police officer A.G., who was in charge of the search . He complained, in particular, that A.G. had acted with bad faith during the search of his car. The applicant maintained that he did not want to lodge a complaint against the remaining police officers “who had been doing their jobs”.

6. On 9 January 2009 the UÅŸak Prosecution Office decided not to prosecute A.G. on the grounds that the accusations made by the applicant were un substantiated.

7. On 16 March 2009, the applicant ’ s objection against the prosecutor ’ s decision was rejected by the Assize Court.

8 . On 19 April 2009 an administrative investigation was launched against the applicant for making false accusations against the police officer A.G. and on 12 November 2009 he was dismissed from his job by a disciplinary committee of the U ÅŸ ak police. The Court is not aware whether this decision was confirmed and became final .

9 . In the meantime, using the information acquired from the tapping of the applicant ’ s telephone conversations (see paragraph 3 above) , a nother disciplinary investigation was launched against the applicant . H e was accused of having an affair with a woman and of using his powers as a police officer to protect her from certain individuals. It was alleged that such behaviour was incompatible with the notions of respect and trust inherent in the profession of a police officer.

10. On 29 September 2009 t he Police Discipline Board of the UÅŸak Governorship decided not to impose any punishment on the applicant because the woman with whom the applicant allegedly had been having an affair had not made any complaints .

COMPLAINTS

11. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that he had to wait in his car for a few hours until the search warrant was obtained.

12. The applicant complain ed under Article 8 that a body search was carried out on his wife and daughter during the search. The applicant also complained that the extracts of his telephone conversations were used against him in a disciplinary investigation.

13. The applicant also referred to Articles 3, 6, 13, 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention without elaborating how and why his rights guaranteed in those provisions might have been breached.

THE LAW

14. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that he had to wait for hours for a search order to be obtained. The Court notes that the applicant did not complain about his allegedly unlawful deprivation of liberty before the national authorities. For this reason this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

15 . As for the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the bodily search of his wife and daughter, i t is to be noted that a search warrant was issued by the prosecutor for searching the applicant ’ s car and for the body search of the applicant and his relative F.D. (see paragraph 4 above). Thus, to the extent that the applicant ’ s complaint is to be understood as relating to the lawfulness of the bodily search of his wife and daughter which was not authorised in the prosecutor ’ s search warrant, the Court, having regard to the fact that the alleged victims of that search were the applicant ’ s wife and daughter and not the applicant himself, finds that this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

16. Concerning the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention about the use of evidence obtained through the tapping of his telephone conversations in a disciplinary investigation (see paragraph 9 above), the Court observes that the applicant did not bring that complaint to the attention of the national authorities . Th us this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

17. Finally, concerning the complaints under Articles 3, 6, 13, 14, 17, 18 of the Convention for which the applicant did not provide any details, i n the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that the y are manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 19 March 2015 .

Abel Campos Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar President