CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 septembre 2003

.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 } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5C1EE5DD { width:228.33pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 76872/01 by Ekrem ERAT against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4   September 2003 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   K. Traja, judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above applications lodged on 10 October 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ekrem Erat, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1981 and residing in Diyarbakır. He is represented before the Court by Arif Altunkalem, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 7 July 2001, at 03.30 a.m., the applicant’s house was searched by the police and he was taken into custody. The search and seizure report drafted on 7 July 2001 and signed by the applicant, stated that the applicant was taken into custody on account of his involvement in PKK related activities. The report further stated that the applicant consented to the search of his house. On 16 July 2001 he was brought before the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court where he gave his deposition and was released. In his deposition, he denied his statements taken before the police and alleged that he had signed the statement without reading it. On 20 July 2001 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him will being a member of an illegal terrorist organisation. The charges were brought under section 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no 3713). COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill treatment while in police custody. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 of the Convention that he was held in police custody for an excessive period of time. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the search conducted at night in his house without a search warrant constitutes a violation of respect for his family and home life. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complains under Articles 5 §§ 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of being held in police custody for an excessive period of time. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the search conducted at his house at night without a search warrant constitutes a violation of the respect for his family and home life. The Court considers that it cannot on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this to the respondent Government.   2.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill treated while in police custody. The Court observes that the applicant has failed to produce any concrete evidence in support of his allegations of ill treatment. Furthermore it is seen from the case files that the applicant did not give a detailed description of the ill treatment he was subjected. The Court finds that the applicant has failed to substantiate his allegations. Consequently the Court proposes that the applicant’s complaint be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the search conducted at the house of the applicant and the length of the applicant’s police custody; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible. Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President