CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 juin 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s27B9D758 { width:204.81pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 28002/95 by T. T. against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 June 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky , , judges , and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 30 March 1995, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant,   T.T., is a Turkish national born in 1945 and lives in İstanbul. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1979 investigations were initiated against a number of persons including the applicant, who was the District Gendarmerie Commander of Çorlu, concerning various smuggling incidents in this region. In an indictment dated 22 December 1980, the Kırklareli Public Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant, under Article 240 of the Turkish Criminal Code, with abuse of office by assisting and protecting smugglers. On 23 February 1982 the Tekirdağ Assize Court convicted the applicant for abuse of office and sentenced him to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and to a heavy fine. The applicant appealed. On 30 June 1982 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, indicating that the classification of the offence had been incorrect and the investigation incomplete. According to the Court of Cassation, the applicant ought to have been tried for collective smuggling. The Tekirdağ Assize Court joined the applicant’s case with another case of collective smuggling initiated against 13 co-accused. The Court, inter   alia , took oral evidence from various witnesses, consulted experts and examined extracts from customs registries and customs service reports. On 12 December 1990 the Tekirdağ Assize Court convicted the applicant and the other co-accused for collective smuggling and sentenced the applicant to one year and eight months’ imprisonment. The Court found that the applicant and the other accused had arranged the entry into Turkey of a truck loaded with smuggled goods. On 15 April 1992 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Tekirdağ Assize Court. It noted that the Assize Court had examined the charges as well as the defence, evaluated all the evidence submitted to it and delivered an impartial judgment. On 23 September 1992 the Head Office of the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s petition for rectification of the Court of Cassation’s judgment dated 15 April 1992. On 5 November 1992 the Tekirdağ Assize Court admitted the applicant’s request that his case be re-opened and initiated new proceedings. On 16   September 1993 the Tekirdağ Assize Court convicted the applicant confirming its former judgment of 12 December 1990. The Assize Court considered that the new elements submitted by the applicant could not have any effect on the reasoning of the judgment of 12 December 1990. The applicant appealed. On 5 October 1994 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Tekirdağ Assize Court’s judgment of 16   September 1993. On 7 December 1994 the Head Office of the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s petition for rectification of the Court of Cassation’s decision. On 15 February 1995 the Tekirdağ Assize Court rejected the applicant’s second petition that his case be re-opened. THE LAW The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 22 December 1980 and ended on 5 October 1994 with the decision of the Tekirdağ Assize Court. They therefore lasted fourteen years. According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government deny the allegation. They argue that the case was complex and involved several defendants. They submit that in 1982, after the Court of Cassation had quashed the judgment of the Tekirdağ Assize Court, the applicant’s case was joined with a collective smuggling case initiated against 13 co-accused. They submit that the decision of the Court of Cassation given on 15 April 1992 was definitive. After this date, the lenght of the procedure was extended by the applicant as he submitted new elements. 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 Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.   Erik Fribergh   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President