CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 novembre 1997

.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 } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; 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. November 1997 Sakık and Others v. Turkey - 23878/94, 23879/94, 23880/94 et al. Judgment 26.11.1997 Article 5 Article 5-3 Brought promptly before judge or other officer Article 5-4 Speediness of review Arrest and detention in police custody of six former members of the National Assembly who were prosecuted in a national security court: violations [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.   ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Derogation under article 15 of the convention Court would be working against object and purpose of Article 15 if, when assessing territorial scope of derogation concerned, it were to extend its effects to part of Turkish territory not explicitly named in notice of derogation. Conclusion : derogation inapplicable ratione loci (unanimously). B.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention Applicants accepted Commission’s conclusion that this provision had not been breached – no argument presented regarding complaint. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). C.   Article 5 § 3 of the Convention Reference to case-law on effects of Article 5 on investigation of terrorist offences. In present case, detention in police custody had lasted twelve or fourteen days – even supposing that activities of which applicants stood accused were linked to a terrorist threat, Court could not accept that it was necessary to detain them for such a lengthy period without judicial intervention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). D.   Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 1.   Government’s preliminary objection (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Objection not raised before Commission – estoppel. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). 2.   Merits of the complaint Single judge at national security court who had ordered applicants’ detention pending trial had not intervened until twelve or in some cases fourteen days after their arrest – such a lengthy period sat ill with the notion of “speedily”. No example of any person detained in police custody having successfully invoked Article 19 § 8 of the Constitution or Article 5 § 4 of the Convention when applying to a judge for a ruling on lawfulness of his detention or for his release – uncertainty of remedy concerned in practice. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). E.   Article 5 § 5 of the Convention 1.   Government’s preliminary objection (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) First limb of objection: not raised before Commission – estoppel. Second limb: closely linked to merits of complaint – questions joined. Conclusion : first limb dismissed; second joined to merits (unanimously). 2.   Merits of the complaint No example of any litigant who had obtained compensation referred to in Article 5 § 5 of Convention by relying on Article 19 of Constitution or section 1 of Law no. 466 – latter’s provisions concerned conditions for compensation which had not obtained in present case – effective enjoyment of right guaranteed by Article 5 § 5 not ensured with sufficient degree of certainty. Conclusion : second limb of preliminary objection dismissed after consideration together with merits; violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: compensation awarded. B.   Costs and expenses: assessed on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicants specified sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (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