CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 avril 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                          Application No. 25126/94                        by Mehmet Erdagöz                        against Turkey        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 9 April 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, 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 17 August 1994 by Mehmet Erdagöz against Turkey and registered on 13 September 1994 under file No. 25126/94;        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 is a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1955 and resides in Kars.        The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.        At about 2 p.m. on 16 September 1992 the applicant applied to the police station in Adana and he complained that his shop's windows were broken by an attack. He also indicated the identity of the persons whom he suspected of being responsible for the attack. The policemen wanted the applicant to bring evidence or witness. The applicant left the police station and after two hours he returned with two bullets which he claimed to have found in his shop. A police team went to the shop to check the applicant's allegations. The policemen drew up a report. They found no evidence of shots having been fired into the applicant's shop and the same day the applicant was placed in custody on account of producing false evidence.        On 17 September 1992 the applicant was released at an unspecified time.        On 17 September 1992 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers E.T. and S.K. for false imprisonment and defamation.        On 6 December 1993 the Public Prosecutor of Adana made an order discontinuing the proceedings against the police officers in respect of the complaint lodged by the applicant. The Public Prosecutor found that, on the basis of the applicant's criminal record and the suspicion that he had produced false evidence, he had been detained for twenty four hours in the police station in order to be questioned for the purposes of the investigation of the case.        On 18 february 1994 the applicant appealed to the President of the Assize Court against the order discontinuing the proceedings.        On 7 April 1994 the President of the Tarsus Assize Court (Adana) dismissed the applicant's appeal.        On 13 April 1994 the applicant requested a written order from the Minister of Justice in order to bring an appeal before the Court of Cassation.        On 4 July 1994 the applicant's request was rejected by the Minister of Justice.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains of the violations of the Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.        As to Article 3, the applicant complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment during police custody. In particular, he alleges that he was tortured by the policemen who had hosed him with compressed water and had not allowed him to sleep.        As to Article 5, the applicant complains that he was deprived of his liberty due to the police custody which lasted 48 hours.     THE LAW        The applicant complains that he was deprived of his liberty and subjected to ill-treatment during police custody which lasted 48 hours.        However, the Commission recalls that, by virtue of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, the Commission may not deal with an application if it contains "substantially the same facts and complaints" as an application previously examined by it (No. 8206/78, Dec. 10.7.81, D.R. 25, p. 150).        The Commission notes that the applicant in a previous application (No. 21890/93) has presented substantially the same facts and complaints, supported moreover by copies of same decisions. This application is currently pending before the Court.        It follows that this application must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.        M.F. BUQUICCHIO                               J. LIDDY         Secretary                                  President    to the First Chamber                       of the First Chamber