CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 juin 1995

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. June 1995 Yağcı and Sargın v. Turkey - 16419/90 and 16426/90 Judgment 8.6.1995 Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness of pre-trial detention Length of pre-trial detention: violation Article 6 Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of criminal proceedings: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATION Turkey's declaration of 22 January 1990 under Article 46 of the Convention contained a valid acceptance of the Court's competence. II.   THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 1.   Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis The Court could not entertain complaints about events which had occurred before 22 January 1990 - however, when examining the applicants' complaints, it would take account of the state of the proceedings at the time when the above-mentioned declaration had been deposited. From 22 January 1990 onwards all the State's acts and omissions not only had to conform to the Convention but were also undoubtedly subject to review by the Convention institutions. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). 2.   Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies First limb of objection: in 1958 the Court of Cassation had twice held that Article 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was designed to enable applications to be made to have detention orders set aside, did not apply to orders prolonging detention. Second limb: the Government had not disputed that Article 19 of the Constitution was largely modelled on Article 5 of the Convention and that the latter had been relied on by the applicants in the National Security Court three times. Third limb: Law no. 466 referred to an action for damages against the State in respect of detention undergone by persons who had been acquitted, whereas applicants had complained of the length of their detention pending trial. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). 3.   Loss of victim status Objection that applicants had received a kind of redress for allegedly excessive length of their detention and the proceedings: had not been raised before Commission and there was estoppel. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: depositing of Turkey's declaration. End: applicants' provisional release. Result: three months and thirteen days, but fact had to be taken into account that by critical date applicants had been in custody for two years and two months. B.   Reasonableness of length of detention Recapitulation of Court's case-law. Danger of absconding: applicants had returned to Turkey of their own accord and with specific aim of founding Turkish United Communist Party - they could not have been unaware that they would be prosecuted for that - National Security Court's orders had confirmed the detention without in any way explaining why there was a danger of absconding. Expression "the state of the evidence": could be understood to mean the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt - in the instant case those circumstances could not on their own justify continuation of detention. Date of arrest: that reason did not stand up to scrutiny either, since no total period of detention was justified in itself, without there being relevant grounds under the Convention. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). IV.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: depositing of Turkey's declaration. End: date on which the Ankara Second Assize Court's judgment became final. Result: two years, five months and eighteen days, but fact had to be taken into account that by critical date the proceedings had already lasted more than two years. B.   Reasonableness of length of proceedings To be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law. 1.   Complexity of case Twenty hearings held by National Security Court, sixteen of which were devoted almost entirely to reading out evidence - even allowing for the quantity of documents, that process could not be regarded as complex. 2.   Applicants' conduct Conduct of applicants and their lawyers at hearings did not seem to have displayed any determination to be obstructive - even if the large number of counsel present and their attitude to the security measures slowed down the proceedings to some extent, they were not factors that, taken alone, could explain length of time in issue. 3.   Conduct of judicial authorities National Security Court had held only twenty hearings in the case at regular intervals, only one of which had lasted for longer than half a day - moreover, after Antiterrorist Act of 12 April 1991 had come into force, it waited nearly six months before acquitting the applicants. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Non-pecuniary damage: compensation awarded. Pecuniary damage: none apparent from the evidence. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicants a specified sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage (eight votes to one). B.   Costs and fees Costs and expenses: amount sought reasonable. Fees: assessed on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicants a specified sum in respect of costs and fees (unanimously). C.   Other claims Court not empowered to accede to applicants' request that it should ask respondent State to comply with the undertakings it had made when ratifying the Convention. Conclusion : claim dismissed (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes