CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F88BEDC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD8BF637E { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3136E68F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2A2C2249 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2DED9654 { width:26.12pt; display:inline-block } .s45C8AC8B { width:146.42pt; display:inline-block } .s8D809A06 { width:21.12pt; display:inline-block } .sD9D14432 { width:158.77pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sDD801C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:6pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s55601073 { height:21pt } .sC76C2804 { 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:bottom; background-color:#4f81bd } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA56D8BA8 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ffffff } .sC4723F79 { 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:bottom; background-color:#4f81bd } .sB4AA937A { 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:bottom; background-color:#4f81bd } .s6CFC133B { 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:bottom; background-color:#dce6f1 } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s428622EC { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom; background-color:#dce6f1 } .s252CCCAA { 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:bottom; background-color:#dce6f1 } .s4CDBBA1E { 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:bottom } .s4B46122D { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s70B41AB9 { 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:bottom } .s790D6B17 { 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:bottom } .s256014D3 { 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:bottom } .s309031D4 { 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:bottom } .sB217F558 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:3pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 24461/09 Hacer ARIKAN and others against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2   July   2019 as a Committee composed of:   Julia Laffranque, President,   Ivana Jelić,   Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 April 2009, 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 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     On 19 December 2000 the security forces carried out an operation at the Bayrampaşa Prison, as part of the so-called “Return to Life” ( Hayata   Dönüş ) operations, which resulted in violent confrontations between the security forces and the prisoners. At the time of the events, all of the applicants were prisoners at the Bayrampaşa Prison. 5.     Following the operation, the applicants were transferred to the Edirne and Bakırköy Prisons. In line with a written order from the Eyüp Public Prosecutor, on various dates in January and February 2001 they gave their statements before the Edirne and Bakırköy Public Prosecutors. 6.     On 27 February 2001 the Eyüp Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the Eyüp Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, accusing one hundred sixty-seven prisoners including all of the applicants, of collective revolt against the prison administration under Article 304(1) of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765). 7.     On 23 June 2008 the Eyüp Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction discontinued the proceedings against the applicants, finding that the statutory time-limit under Articles 102(4) and 104(2) of the former Criminal Code had expired on 16   June 2008. 8.     The applicants appealed, arguing that they should have been acquitted of the charges against them. 9.     On 13 February 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Criminal Court. COMPLAINTS 10.     Without relying on any provision of the Convention, the applicants stated that during the operation at the Bayrampaşa Prison they had been wounded. They also noted that they had subsequently been subjected to ill ‑ treatment and that the investigation against the security forces had not been effective. 11.     The applicants complained under Article 6 and 13 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them had been unfair. 12.     They submitted under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 that they had suffered discrimination on the ground of their political opinions. THE LAW Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention 13.     The applicants described the operation carried out at the Bayrampaşa Prison, stating that the security forces had opened fire on them, that they had been subjected to ill-treatment and that the investigation against the members of the security forces had either lasted too long or been discontinued. However, they went on to specify that the present application merely concerned the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 14.     The Court notes that the applicants had submitted their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 in another application, which was examined by the Court in its judgment of Erol Arıkan and Others v. Turkey (no.   19262/09, 20   November 2012). In its Erol Arıkan judgment, the Court stated in response to the Government’s preliminary objections that the two cases were not the same, as the complaints raised in the present case pertained to the criminal proceedings against the applicants, whereas in that case they complained about the operation carried out in the Bayrampaşa Prison and the ineffectiveness of the investigation against those responsible (ibid., §§   59-60). In view of the lack of any complaints under Articles 2 and 3 in the present case, the Court considers that there is no need to make a ruling under this head. Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention 1.     Length of the criminal proceedings 15.     The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings against them had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 16.     The Court reiterates that the effect of the length of the proceedings might not be eliminated by the discontinuation of the proceedings (see Osmanov and Huseinov v. Bulgaria , (dec.), nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, 4   September 2003). 17.     Nevertheless, the Court observes that a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey following the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no.   24240/07, 20   March 2012). Subsequently, in its decision in the case of Turgut   and Others   v.   Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), the Court declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy. In so doing, the Court considered in particular that this new remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings. 18.     In the present case the applicants did not make any application to the Compensation Commission.   Accordingly, the Court concludes that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 2.     Other complaints 19.     The applicants argued under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them had been unfair. In that connection they complained, in particular, that the indictment against them had not been served on them, that the domestic court had lacked independence and impartiality, and that they had not been able to examine the witnesses against them in person. They also claimed under Article 6 § 2 that their presumption of innocence had been breached. Lastly, relying on Article   14 in conjunction with Article 6, the applicants complained that they had been subjected to discrimination on account of their political opinions. 20.     The Court reiterates that a person may not claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention which, according to him, took place in the course of proceedings in which he was acquitted or which were discontinued (see Oleksy v.   Poland (dec.), no.   1379/06, 16 June 2009, and the cases cited therein). 21.     The Court observes that in the present case the criminal proceedings against the applicants were terminated on the ground that the statutory time-limit under Articles 102(4) and 104(2) of the former Criminal Code had expired. As a result, the applicants were not sanctioned or convicted for any criminal offence. Accordingly, they can no longer claim to be the victims of the alleged violations of the Convention, as required by Article 34 (see Oleksy , cited above, and Flor Lemus v. Portugal (dec.), no.   15729/15, 25   September 2018). 22.     It follows that the applicants’ complaints under this head must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 September 2019.   Hasan Bakırcı   Julia Laffranque   Deputy registrar   President APPENDIX   Contact ID App. No. Last Name First Name Date Of Birth 367633 24461/09 Arıkan Hacer 01/01/1966 171620 24461/09 Arıkan Erol 01/01/1962 699586 24461/09 Aydınbaşlık Sadrettin 01/01/1963 699591 24461/09 Bal Salih 01/01/1967 699585 24461/09 Boztepe Mehmet 01/01/1968 285076 24461/09 Canpolat Mehmet Hakan 25/01/1964 478100 24461/09 Çiftçi Mehmet 01/10/1952 699584 24461/09 Göktaş Mehmet 01/01/1966 699592 24461/09 Gönültaş Sefa 01/01/1967 699597 24461/09 Hun Hacı Aziz 01/01/1965 699594 24461/09 İlhan Özlem 01/01/1977 399683 24461/09 Kale Hikmet 08/12/1970 269583 24461/09 Kaplan Erol 01/01/1967 193294 24461/09 Karagöz Esral 30/01/1961 257365 24461/09 Kartal Volkan 01/01/1977 699588 24461/09 Kazak Türker 01/01/1971 700933 24461/09 Kodak Rıdvan 01/01/1959 699599 24461/09 Otluçimen Dincer 01/01/1976 724853 24461/09 Şahin Cem 01/01/1976 447250 24461/09 San Baran Gülderen 01/01/1973 237238 24461/09 Tamer Fazıl Ahmet 11/08/1966 699595 24461/09 Tarakçı Turhan 01/01/1969 257367 24461/09 Tufan Kemal 01/01/1967 724850 24461/09 Yiğit Yılmaz 01/01/1976 724851 24461/09 Yigit Bülent 01/01/1977 699589 24461/09 Zeyrek İlhan 01/01/1977