THIRD SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 69124/01 
by Hikmedin YILDIZ 
against Turkey

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

Mr J. Hedigan, President
 Mr L. Caflisch
 Mr R. Türmen
 Mr C. Bîrsan
 Mr V. Zagrebelsky
 Mrs A. Gyulumyan, 
 Ms R. Jaeger, judges
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 October 2000,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Hikmedin Yıldız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Diyarbakır. He is represented before the Court by Mr E. Talay and Mr S. Akbaş, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır.

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

On 12 January 1993 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody. He was remanded in custody on 29 January 1993.

On an unspecified date, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership in an illegal organisation. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.

On an unspecified date, the trial before the Diyarbakır State Security Court commenced. The applicant was tried together with fifty co-accused.

During a hearing held on 2 April 1996 the public prosecutor, in his submissions on the merits of the case, requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation under Article 169 of the Criminal Code.

On the same day, the court ordered the applicant’s release.

On 25 April 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he had been deprived of his liberty for three years, three months and thirteen days and that he did not have any remedy whereby to seek compensation for the damage caused to him by his unlawful remand in custody.

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him was excessive.

The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy whereby he could raise his complaint pertaining to the length of his unlawful remand in custody before a national authority. In this regard, the applicant submitted that since the criminal proceedings against him had been terminated on account of the statutory time limit, he could not seek compensation pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained.

THE LAW

1.  The applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he had been deprived of his liberty for three years, three months and thirteen days.

The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

The Court notes that period to be taken into consideration started on 
12 January 1993 and ended on 2 April 1996 when the applicant was released, whereas the application was introduced with the Court on 
23 October 2000, i.e. more than six months after the detention complained of.

It follows that this part of the application is introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

2.  The applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he did not have any remedy whereby to seek compensation for the damage caused to him by his unlawful remand in custody. He further complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy whereby he could raise his complaint pertaining to the length of his unlawful remand in custody before a national authority. In this regard, the applicant submitted that since the criminal proceedings against him had been terminated on account of the statutory time limit, he could not seek compensation pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained.

In so far as the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, as laid down in the application form, concerns the inability of the applicant to seek compensation pursuant to Law no.466, the Court considers that his complaints fall most naturally within the scope of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention. Accordingly, it will consider them under that provision only.

The Court reiterates that this provision guarantees an enforceable right to compensation only to those who have been the victims of arrest or detention contrary to Article 5 of the Convention (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports 1996- III, p. 755, § 50). In the absence of any such finding in the present case, the Court is of the opinion that no issues arise under this provision of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

3.  The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him was excessive.

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.

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 John Hedigan 
 Registrar President

YILDIZ v. TURKEY DECISION


YILDIZ v. TURKEY DECISION