CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 septembre 2000

.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 22 September 2000 Aydın v. Turkey (dec.) - 41954/98 Decision 14.9.2000 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Criminal charge Principle of multiplicity of sentences: inadmissible In 1988, the applicant was found guilty of, inter alia , membership of the PKK and sentenced to sixteen years and eight months’ imprisonment by the Martial Court. However, his conditional release was ordered. In 1993, he was found guilty of separatist acts and sentenced to life imprisonment by the State Security Court. He obtained the court’s agreement that the life sentence should be served in accordance with the principle of multiplicity of sentences. The court sent its final decision to the public prosecutor for its execution to be ensured. The public prosecutor objected to the application of the principle of multiplicity of sentences and the State Security Court to which the case was subsequently transferred quashed the initial decision. According to Turkish law, a sentence is considered to have been executed when the sentenced person has been conditionally released. The court accordingly considered that the principle did not apply to the applicant, who had been conditionally released after his first sentence, so that only the last sentence remained to be executed. Inadmissible under Article 6: The applicant’s initial request concerned the manner in which the sentence was being implemented and not the length of it. Proceedings concerning the execution of a sentence are not covered by this provision and there is no right under the Convention to serve a prison sentence according to a particular sentencing system: incompatible ratione materiae .   © 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