CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 juillet 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s216DBE45 { width:187.29pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 12923/12 Ali KESKİN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8   July 2014 as a Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President,   Işıl Karakaş,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Helen Keller,   Paul Lemmens,   Egidijus Kūris,   Robert Spano, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 January 2012, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Ali Keskin, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Erzurum. He was represented before the Court by Mr   B.   Bedirhanoğlu, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 21 August 2006 the applicant found his seven-year-old son, A.K., injured. 4.   On 14 August 2008 the Oltu public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Oltu Assize Court, accusing N.K., the applicant’s former wife, of assaulting A.K. and murdering the couple’s first child, M.K. The applicant joined the criminal proceedings against N.K. as a civil party. 5.     On 4 March 2010, after evaluating the medical reports, witness statements and the public prosecutor’s written opinion, the Oltu Assize Court acquitted N.K. of the charges against her. 6.     On 25 May 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Assize Court. This decision was deposited with the registry of the Assize Court on 21 June 2011. The president of the court noted on the judgment that the intervening party should be notified. According to the information in the case file, the judgment was not served on the applicant. On 6   January 2012 he obtained a copy from the registry of the first-instance court. COMPLAINTS 7.     The applicant complained that the domestic authorities had not conducted an effective investigation into his allegations that his son, who was seven years old at the time of the events, had been seriously injured by his mother. In this connection, he argued that the Oltu public prosecutor had failed to act promptly in arranging the child’s medical examination, that the criminal proceedings against the child’s mother had lasted too long and that the domestic court had failed to examine the evidence diligently. The application was communicated under Article 3 of the Convention. THE LAW 8.     The applicant alleged that the manner in which the criminal ‑ law mechanisms had been applied in the present case by the domestic authorities was in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 9.     The Government maintained that the application should be rejected for non-compliance with the six-month time-limit. In this connection, they stated that the final decision of the Court of Cassation had been deposited with the registry of the Oltu Assize Court on 21 June 2011, whereas the application had been lodged with the Court on 9 January 2012. In this connection, they referred to the Court’s case-law adopted in Rafiye Karaman and others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 8415/09, 2 November 2010) and Ölmez v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 39464/98, 1 February 2005). 10.     The applicant challenged the Government’s preliminary objection and stated that although the final decision had been deposited with the registry of the first-instance court on 21 June 2011, no official notification had been made by the authorities, and he had learned about the decision on 6   January 2012 when he had called at the court to inquire about his case. 11.     The Court reiterates that the six-month time-limit provided for by Article 35 § 1 has a number of aims, and its primary purpose is to maintain legal certainty by ensuring that cases raising issues under the Convention are examined within a reasonable time, and to prevent the authorities and other persons concerned from being kept in a state of uncertainty for a long period of time. The existence of such a time-limit is justified by the wish of the High Contracting Parties to prevent past judgments being constantly called into question and constitutes a legitimate concern for order, stability and peace (see Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, §§   39 ‑ 40, 29   June 2012). 12.     The Court further reaffirms its practice that, where an applicant is automatically entitled to be served with a written copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the written judgment (see Worm v. Austria , judgment of 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports 1997-V). In cases where the domestic law does not provide for service, the Court considers it appropriate to take the date the decision was finalised as the starting point, that being when the parties were definitely able to be informed of its content (see, among many other authorities, İpek v. Turkey (dec.), no. 7 November 2000, and Karatepe v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 43924/98, 3   April 2003). 13.     In the present case, the Court observes that the president of the Assize Court had noted on the decision of the Court of Cassation that the intervening party should be notified of it. Despite this annotation, the Court recalls that although the wording of Article 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that judgments and court decisions are to be served on the parties to a case, it is not the practice of the Criminal Divisions of the Court of Cassation to serve their decisions on defendants (see İpek , cited above; Alpar v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 5684/02, 27   May 2008). However, the accused, the intervening parties and/or their lawyers may request a copy of the final decision from the moment when the decision of the Court of Cassation is deposited with the registry of the first-instance court. The Court further takes note of the fact that the parties to a criminal case have the possibility of tracking the progress of their case on the Court of Cassation’s website, which is accessible to everybody (see, mutatis mutandis , Saruhan and Çelik v.   Turkey , no. 5298/06, § 11, 22   September 2009). 14.     In the present case, the final decision was deposited with the registry of the Assize Court on 21 June 2011, whereas the application was lodged on 9   January 2012, more than six months later. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to substantiate the existence of specific circumstances which might have prevented him from observing the time ‑ limit laid down in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention. 15.     In the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds no reason to depart from its established case-law cited above, and considers that the application should be rejected for non-compliance with the six ‑ month time ‑ limit pursuant to Article 35 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, by a majority, Declares the application inadmissible. Stanley Naismith   Guido Raimondi   Registrar   President