CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 juin 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBCAF7996 { width:142.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 61997/08 Lütfi Zihni AKDOĞAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25   June 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Dragoljub Popović, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Helen Keller, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 December 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Lütfi Zihni Akdoğan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Kaya and Mr Ş. Tanınmış, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 24 November 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of having assaulted his ex-wife. The next day, on 25 November 1999, he was found by two police officers while attempting to commit suicide. He was then transferred to the Kartal public prosecutor’s office and released afterwards. Subsequently, on 25 and 26 November 1999 respectively, the applicant was examined by three different doctors, all of whom noted several scars and ecchymoses on his body. On 4 July 2002 the Kartal public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Kartal Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, accusing the chief police officer with ill-treatment pursuant to Section 245 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765). On 8 April 2002 the Kartal public prosecutor issued another indictment, this time against the other police officers involved, accusing them with ill ‑ treatment as well. On 26 January 2005 the Kartal Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction acquitted all officers concerned. Finally, on 21 January 2008 the Court of Cassation discontinued the case, finding that it was time-barred pursuant to Sections 102 and 104 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765) and Section 223 of the Code on Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271). The final decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 12 June 2008. COMPLAINT The applicant alleged under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in that he had been beaten and threatened while in police custody. Relying upon Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the length and outcome of the criminal proceedings against the police officers involved in his ill-treatment. THE LAW The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention about the alleged ill-treatment he had been subjected to during his time in police custody and the ensuing criminal proceedings against the police officers concerned. The Court notes first of all that the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention should be examined from the standpoint of Article 3 alone. Nevertheless, it observes that the final decision of the criminal proceedings against the police officers was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 12 June 2008, that is, more than six months before the applicant lodged the application with the Court. It follows that the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Françoise Elens-Passos   Dragoljub Popović Acting Deputy Registrar   President