THIRD SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 33620/02 
by Abdulvahap ORUÇ 
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 December 2005 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B.M. Zupančič, President
 Mr J. Hedigan
 Mr L. Caflisch
 Mr R. Türmen
 Mr C. Bîrsan
 Mrs A. Gyulumyan, 
 Mrs R. Jaeger, judges,

and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 August 2002,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Abdulvahap Oruç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in İzmit. He is represented before the Court by Ms N. Aktaş, a lawyer practising in İzmit.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 11 June 1991 an auditor initiated an investigation into the alleged falsification of documents carried out in the applicant’s pharmacy. On 4 July 1991 the auditor informed the public prosecutor about the outcome of his investigation

On 16 June 1993 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant for forgery of official documents. The Ministry of Finance and Customs intervened in the proceedings.

On 21 June 1993 the Diyarbakır Assize Court scheduled the first hearing for 20 September 1993. It also requested the Ministry to submit all documents relevant to the case.

On 10 May 1994, at the sixth hearing, the Ministry complied with the court’s request.

On 28 February 1995 the court sent the case file to an expert to comment on the allegedly forged documents. At the hearing of 14 May 1996 the expert report was submitted.

On 19 September 1996 the court referred the case file to the Forensic Department to have their opinion as well. After eight hearings, on 27 January 1998, the Forensic Department submitted its report on the allegedly forged documents, but it failed to send back the case-file. On 23 June 1998 the case file was sent back to the court.

On 9 February 1999 the court requested a graphology expert at the Forensic Department to determine whether the handwriting and the signatures found on the documents belonged to the applicant.

On 23 December 1999 the graphology expert submitted his report.

On 18 January 2000 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the applicant guilty of the charges and sentenced him to two years and eleven months imprisonment.

The applicant appealed against the judgement of the Assize Court. On 24 January 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Assize Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings.

He further complains under Article 4 of the Protocol 7 that due to the length and the negative repercussions of the proceedings in his personal life, it seems as if he had been punished twice of the same crime.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant complains under Article 4 of the Protocol 7 that he had been punished twice for the same crime. He claims that all he had to go through in his personal life due to the lengthy criminal proceedings constituted a second punishment for him.

The Court notes that Turkey did not ratify Protocol No. 7. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič 
 Registrar President

ORUÇ v. TURKEY DECISION


ORUÇ v. TURKEY DECISION