CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 avril 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right }       SECOND SECTION Application no. 32969/11 Kerim CÜRE against Turkey lodged on 7 February 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Kerim Cüre, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr   M.   İnan, a lawyer practising in İstanbul. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 6 June 2006 the Büyükçekmece Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on suspicion of attempted homicide and complicity in it. The court based its decision on the nature and classification of the offence in question and on the existence of a strong suspicion that he had committed the offence. On 24 August 2006 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment, and charged the applicant and a number of other persons with the offence of attempted homicide and contravention of the Firearms Act. On 14 December 2007 the Bakırköy Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged, and it imposed 14 years and 6 months’ imprisonment in total and a fine of 450 Turkish Liras. The Assize Court further ordered the applicant’s continued detention. Throughout the proceedings, the Assize Court extended the applicant’s detention on the same grounds, namely the maximum sentenced envisaged for the offence in question, the state of the evidence, the existence of strong suspicion that he had committed the offence, and the fact that the offence was one of those offences listed in Article 100 of the Criminal Code. The court also examined ex proprio motu the applicant’s continued detention at thirty days intervals between the hearings. On 11 November 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, requiring further examination in respect of the attempted homicide and re-assessment of the latter offence under the amended Article 231 of the Criminal Code governing the deferment of the pronouncement of judgment ( hükmün açıklanmasının geriye bırakılması ). On 4 October 2010 at the sixth hearing following the high court’s decision the Bakırköy Assize Court further ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention. In addition to the previous grounds for detention, the court referred to the sentence sought, the fact that the case was ready for a decision, and the fact that the applicant was in detention in accordance with another first-instance judgment ( hükmen tutuklu ). On 11 October 2010 the Bakırköy Assize Court once again convicted the applicant as in its previous judgment. The court decided to keep him in detention pending examination of an appeal. According to the case file as it stands, the case is pending before the Court of Cassation. COMPLAINTS Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the conditions of the Metris Prison where he had been held during the first year of his detention amounted to ill-treatment. The applicant alleged in this respect that mostly convicted inmates had been put in that prison, that he had stayed in cells which had been too hot in summer and had not been warm enough in winter, and that the cells had had no ventilation and had been infested with many types of bugs. In his submissions under Article 3 and, in substance, Article 6 § 2, the applicant also maintained that his right to the presumption of innocence had been breached due to having been kept in the first year of his detention in a prison where mostly convicted prisoners had been held. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive and that the first-instance court had ordered the continuation of his detention by using stereotyped wording. He also referred to the fact that it took two months for the indictment to be prepared. Relying on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant argued that, in the examination of his detention between hearings, the Assize Court had obtained only the opinion of the public prosecutor but had not given him the opportunity to make his submissions. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to submit the copy of an unidentified first-instance judgment for the continued detention of the applicant following conviction ( hükmen tutukluluk ). It was cited by the Bakırköy Assize Court at hearing of 4 October 2010 as one of the grounds to extend the applicant’s detention.