Application no. 46058/99
by Zeki SÜLEYMANOĞLU
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 January 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr J.-P. Costa, President,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze,
Ms D. Jočienė,
Mr D. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 January 1999,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Zeki Süleymanoğlu, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1967 and was detained in Diyarbakır prison at the time of his application to the Court. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Çınar, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 December 1994 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of the PKK.
On 13 January 1995 the applicant was brought before a single judge of the Diyarbakır State Security Court, who ordered his detention on remand.
On 27 January 1995 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with aiding and abetting members of the PKK.
By decisions of 20 March, 24 April and 16 May 1996, 10 April, 12 June and 4 December 1997, 23 January and 14 April 1998 the Diyarbakır State Security Court dismissed the applicant’s requests for release pending trial. It further examined the applicant’s continued detention every two or three months on its own motion. In ordering the applicant’s continued detention, the court relied on the nature of the offences charged, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file.
On 3 June 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant, under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law No. 3713, of membership of the PKK. The court sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. It further permanently debarred the applicant from employment in civil service and placed him under judicial guardianship.
The applicant appealed.
On 25 January 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 3 June 1999.
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention pending trial exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement. The applicant further complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
On 10 January 2002 the Court communicated the application to the Government. In a letter of 1 April 2003, the Court informed the parties that, in accordance with Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it would decide on both the admissibility and merits of the application. By the same letter, the applicant’s representative was requested to submit his client’s final observations on admissibility and merits, together with any claims for just satisfaction, by 12 May 2003, subsequently extended to 31 May 2003.
In letters of 29 October 2003, 12 July and 14 September 2005, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was reminded of the need to submit the observations and the just satisfaction claim. He was also warned that the case might be struck out of the list for lack of interest.
No response was received by the Court to any of these letters.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of this application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. Dollé J.-P.
SÜLEYMANOĞLU v. TURKEY DECISION
SÜLEYMANOĞLU v. TURKEY DECISION