Communicated on 22 September 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 8700/07 Yusuf ÇETİNKAYA against Turkey lodged on 13 February 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yusuf Çetinkaya , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Bursa . He is represented before the Court by Mr H.A. Yılmaz , a lawyer practising in Bursa .

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant is a lawyer and a board member of the Bursa branch of the Human Rights Association for Oppressed People ( Mazlumder ).

On 16 June 1999 the Public Prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court requested the court to issue a warrant authorising the search of the headquarters and branches of the Mazlumder , in order to search for evidence concerning certain acts of the association allegedly carried out against the “integrity of the country and the secular regime”. On the same day the court issued the search warrant , which provided as follows:

“...In accordance with Article 13 of the Code on the Establishment and Procedures of State Security Courts and Articles 86, 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98 of the Code o f Criminal Procedure , and in line with the request of the Public Prosecutor, it has been decided to carry out a search of the headquarters and all branches of the Mazlumder , during day time and on one occasion only, for the purpose of searching for evidence.”

On 18 June 1999 the Public Prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court communicated the court decision to the Ministry of the Interior for execution. On the same day, the Public Prosecutor sent an additional letter to the same Ministry which read as follows:

“Pursuant to Article 86 and subsequent articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and considering that this is a situation where delay would be detrimental, the Public Prosecutor ’ s office has also decided to carry out a search of the homes and offices of the General Director and board members of the A ssociation.”

On the same day the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior sent a letter to the governors of 80 provinces, which read as follows:

“Pursuant to the Ankara State Security Court ’ s decision of 16 June 1999 and the Public Prosecutor ’ s decision of 18 June 1999, in accordance with Article 86 and subsequent articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in the light of all the information and evidence showing that the Mazlumder is acting against the integrity of the country and the secular regime, it is requested that a search be carried out at its headquarters and branches, as well as at the homes and offices of the General Director and board members, which includes the homes and offices of the board members of the branches.”

On 19 June 1999 police officers carried out a simultaneous search of all the premises mentioned in the letter of the Under-Secretary of the Ministry , including the applicant ’ s home and law firm . The search of the applicant ’ s law firm was carried out without the presence of a representative of the Bar Association.

On 2 May 2000 the applicant applied to the Ministry of the Interior and alleged that his home and law firm had been searched unlawfully. He complained that by extending the scope of the search warrant iss ued by the State Security Court, the Public Prosecutor had exceeded his authority and that the Under-Secretary of the Ministry had interpreted the Public Prosecutor ’ s instructions too broadly to include even the residences of all the board members. He also claimed compensation for his non-pecuniary losses.

On 18 May 2000 the Ministry of Interior replied to the applicant ’ s application and informed him that no action could be taken by the Ministry as there was no court decision on the matter.

On 20 June 2000 the applicant introduced a case before the Administrative Court against the Ministry of Interior, claiming non-pecuniary damages caused as a result of the unlawful search of his home and law firm.

On 1 November 2001 the Bursa Administrative Court rejected the applicant ’ s claims on the ground that the search had not been unlawful and the Ministry could not be held responsible for its lawful actions . A ccording to the dissenting opinion of one of the judges of the Administrative Court , the applicant ’ s home had been searched in the absence of a court order or an order from the prosecutor . As a result, the inviolability of the applicant ’ s house had been breached and compensation sh ould be granted.

On 12 February 2002 the applicant appealed against the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court.

On 21 January 2004 the appeal was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court.

On 1 November 2004 the applicant applied for the revision of the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court.

On 4 July 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected applicant ’ s request. On 9 September 2006 the decision was served on the applicant.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the search of his home and law firm did not have any legal basis, and violated his rights protected under the Convention. He further maintains that a representative of the Bar Association should have been present during the search as a legal requirement; however , his law firm was searched without any such presence .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, home or correspondence , within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?