CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   754 13.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Tunce and Others v. Turkey (No.   1) (Application nos. 2422/063712/08, 3714/08, 3715/08, 3717/08, 3718/08, 3719/08, 3724/08, 3725/08, 3728/08, 3730/08, 3731/08, 3733/08, 3734/08, 3735/08, 3737/08, 3739/08, 3740/08, 3745/08 and 3746/08 )   INEFFECTIVENESS OF NEW REMEDY FOR COMPLAINTS ABOUT DELAYS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each applicant 14,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French)   Principal facts   The applicants are twenty Turkish nationals: Messrs. Mesut Tunce, Naşit Tutar, İhsan   Baran, Asif Güneş, Hasan Süsli, Murat Salur, Şahin Yapıcı, Mustafa   Demir, Mehmet Duman, Seyfettin Kinay, Mehmet Ali Eneze, Veysi Ülsen, Sedat Şeran, Kasım Erkan, Remezan Elaltuntaş, Güro Adem, Mehmet Zeki İnal, Mustafa Sevim, Sıdık Kurt and Mahsum Nazli. They are currently being held in Diyarbakır prison (Turkey).   The applicants were sentenced to life imprisonment for attempting to overthrow, by force, the Turkish constitutional order, and for belonging to an illegal armed organisation. They were arrested and taken into custody, in June 1994 for the first six applicants, and in October 1994 for the others, during operations against Hizbullah, an illegal armed organisation. They were convicted in two decisions (of 22   June 2007 and 26   February 2007) that became final in April 2008 and April 2009 respectively.   The applicants remained in pre-trial detention from the time of their arrest until their conviction. Their requests for release were always denied and their detention was periodically extended.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4, the applicants complained that the length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive. Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (effective remedy), the applicants complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against them had been excessive and that no remedy had been available in that respect.   The 20 applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10   December 2005. In view of their similarity, the Court decided to join them and examine them together in a single judgment.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), Judges , and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar   Decision of the Court   Article 5 §§ 3 and 4   The pre-trial detention had lasted for more than 12 years and six months for the first six applicants and more than 12 years and five months for the others. As the Turkish Government had not submitted any arguments to justify their detention for such long periods, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The decisions to keep them in custody had been based on stereotyped reasoning concerning the “nature of the offence”, “the state of the evidence” or the “content of the file”. The authorities had not afforded the guarantees that should accompany a custodial measure, such as adversarial proceedings, equality of arms between prosecutor and defendant, and a public hearing in which the applicants could participate effectively. The Court thus held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Article 6 § 1 and Article 13   The criminal proceedings had lasted for more than 13 years and ten months for the first six applicants and more than 14 years and seven months for the others. The complexity of the cases – concerning organised crime, with a significant number of defendants and offences – could not justify such delays in the proceedings. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1.   The new Turkish code of criminal procedure, which had entered into force on 1   June 2005, allowed persons who had stood trial after being held on remand to claim compensation before the competent court on account of delays in the criminal proceedings. The Court observed that this remedy could be used only after the judicial decision concerned had become final. It did not therefore allow a detainee to request appropriate redress or the discontinuance of a violation while the proceedings were in progress. In the present case, the applicants had been unable to use the remedy in question because the criminal proceedings against them were still pending when they lodged their applications.   Accordingly, the criterion of effectiveness, both in law and in practice, within the meaning of Article 13, had not been fulfilled. The Court therefore found unanimously that there had been a violation of that Article.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.