CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 octobre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s396140A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD5954E93 { width:13.35pt; display:inline-block } .s33E1B184 { width:256.83pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 32981/96 by Atalay DEDE, Mehmet KUMRAL, Hüseyin Hakkı ZABCI, Mehmet Akın DİRİK against Turkey     The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 October 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mrs   E. Palm, President ,   Mr   L. Ferrari Bravo,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson,   Mr   B. Zupančič,   Mr   T. Panţîru,   Mr   R. Maruste, judges ,   Mr   F. Gölcüklü, ad hoc judge, and   Mr   M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,     Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 30 May, 14 June, 18 June 1996 respectively and registered on 17   September 1996,     Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,     Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicants are Turkish nationals, born in 1959, 1955, 1944 and 1949 respectively and living in Ankara and Istanbul. The applicants Mr Atalay Dede and Mr   Mehmet   Akın   Dirik are represented before the Court by Ms Nurten Çağlar and Mr   Mehdi   Bektaş respectively, lawyers practising in Ankara. The applicants Mr   Mehmet   Kumral and Mr   Hüseyin Hakkı Zabcı did not designate a lawyer for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.     In January and February 1981 the applicants were arrested by policemen and placed in police custody. They were accused of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary   Way). The Ankara Martial Law Court ( sıkıyönetim mahkemesi ) remanded the applicants in custody.     On 26 February 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Ankara Martial Law Court setting out charges against 723 defendants, including the applicants. He accused the applicants of membership of an organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime, contrary to Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code.     On different dates the applicants were all released pending trial by the Ankara Martial Law Court.     After martial Law was lifted, the Ankara Martial Law Court took the name of the Martial law Court attached to the 4th Army Corps.     On 19 July 1989 the Martial Law Court convicted the applicants and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. The applicants appealed to the Military Court of Cassation ( askeri yargıtay ).     Following promulgation of the Law of 26 December 1994, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation ( yargıtay ) acquired jurisdiction over the cases and the files were sent to it.     On 28 December 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld Mr Mehmet Kumral’s and Mr   Hüseyin Hakkı Zabcı’s conviction. It quashed the convictions of Mr Dede and Mr Dirik and referred the cases to the Ankara Assize Court ( aır ceza mahkemesi ). The criminal proceedings are still pending before the latter court.     The beginning and the end of the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants are as follows:   Applicant’s name Beginning of the criminal proceedings End of the criminal proceedings Atalay DEDE 16 February 1981 still pending Mehmet KUMRAL 15 February 1981 28 December 1995 Hüseyin Hakkı ZABCI 15 February 1981 28 December 1995 Mehmet Akın DİRİK 22 January 1981 still pending   COMPLAINT     The applicants complain that the criminal proceedings instituted against them were not determined within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     THE LAW     The applicants’ complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began in January and February 1981 and ended on 28 December 1995 in respect of Mr   Mehmet   Kumral and Mr Hüseyin Hakkı Zabcı. They are still pending in respect of Mr   Atalay Dede and Mr Mehmet Akın Dirik.     The criminal proceedings against Mr Kumral and Mr Zabcı lasted almost 14 years. They have already lasted 19 years in respect of Mr   Dede and Mr Dirik.     According to the applicants, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     The Government reject the allegation. They point out that, pursuant to former Article 25 of the Convention, Turkey has recognised the Court’s jurisdiction only in respect of facts or events that have occurred since 22 January 1990.     It is to be noted at the outset that on 1 November 1998 , by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol. It further notes in this respect that the Commission’s competence ratione temporis began on 28   January 1987, the date on which Turkey’s declaration accepting the right of individual petition came into force. Turkey accepted the former Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis as of 22 January 1990. The question therefore arises whether the Court should be considered to be competent as from 28 January 1987 or 22   January 1990 to deal with each of the complaints submitted . The Court considers it appropriate in the circumstances of the present case to join this question to the merits as the parties have not addressed it in their memorial.     As regards the merits of the case, the Government highlight the complexity of the cases and the nature of the offences with which the applicants were charged. They maintain that the courts dealt with a trial involving 723 defendants, including the applicants, whose activities and connections had to be established. The Government claim that no negligence or delay was imputable to the judicial authorities.     The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.   For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   DECIDES TO JOIN TO THE MERITS THE QUESTION CONCERNING ITS JURISDICTION RATIONE TEMPORIS ,   and   DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.       Michael O’Boyle   Elisabeth Palm   Registrar   President