CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 juin 1999

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 7 June 1999 Ketenoğlu v. Turkey (dec.) - 29360/95 and 29361/95 Decision 15.6.1999 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Independent tribunal Independence and impartiality of martial law court: admissible The applicants, a married couple, were arrested in 1980 on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation, Dev Yol (Revolutionary Way). Their detention was ordered by a martial law court. In 1982 the military prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against over 700 defendants, including the applicants. Pursuant to a provision of the Martial Law Act, as amended in 1982, the martial law court continued to deal with the case even after martial law had been lifted. After the applicants had been released in 1985, the military prosecutor filed a new bill of indictment, seeking the death sentence in respect of the second applicant (the husband). The applicants left the country illegally in May 1989 and were convicted by the martial law court in July 1989. The first applicant was sentenced to 5½ years' imprisonment and the second applicant to 16 years' imprisonment. The Court of Cassation rejected the first applicant's appeal, but quashed the second applicant's conviction and referred the case to the Assize Court, before which the case is still pending. The applicants complain about the length of the proceedings and about the lack of independence and impartiality of the martial law court which convicted them. The court was composed of two military judges, two civilian judges and an army officer. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 (length and independence/impartiality). [NB. The case is similar to the case of Mitap and Müfüoglu v. Turkey (no. 15530/89 and 15531/89), which in fact concerned the same trial. In that case, the Court found in its judgment of 25 March 1996 ( Reports of Judgment and Decisions 1996-II) that it lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine the complaint concerning independence and impartiality, since Turkey's acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction related to facts or events which had occurred after 22 January 1990. However, the Commission had been able to examine this complaint, since Turkey's recognition of its competence was effective as from 28 January 1987. The Commission concluded in its report of 8 December 1994 that the martial law court could not be regarded as an independent and impartial tribunal.]   © 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