CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 juin 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 87 June 2006 Vayiç v. Turkey - 18078/02 Judgment 20.6.2006 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Period to be taken into account: when the accused person was a fugitive during part of the proceedings: violation   Facts : The applicant was detained pending trial, on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. Five years later, he was released on bail. After two years, the State Security Court convicted him and sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. The Court of Cassation later quashed the decision and the case was remitted. The proceedings resumed and several warrants were issued for the applicant’s arrest as,   since he had absconded, he did not respond to summonses issued by the court. The proceedings remained pending when the European Court adopted its judgment. Law : Article 5(3) – The detention pending trial (5 years, 1 month) exceeded a reasonable time. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 6(1) – The proceedings commenced the day of the applicant’s arrest, and are still pending, but the applicant cannot rely on the period during which he was trying to avoid being brought to justice in his country. Indeed, the flight of an accused person has in itself certain repercussions on the scope of the guarantee provided by Article 6(1) as regards the duration of proceedings. When an accused person flees from a State which respects the principle of the rule of law, it may be assumed that he or she is not entitled to complain of the unreasonable duration of proceedings following that flight, unless sufficient reason can be shown to rebut this assumption. In the instant case, there is nothing to rebut this assumption. Therefore, the relevant period ended the day of the applicant’s release pending trial. The period to be taken into account is therefore over five years and one month for one level of jurisdiction. By absconding following his release pending trial, the applicant also contributed to the length of the proceedings. However, at the time of his release, the proceedings had already lasted a very long time before one level of jurisdiction. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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