Last Updated on April 27, 2019 by LawEuro
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.56744/15
İbrahim Halil YAHLI
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 March 2019 as a Committee composed of:
ValeriuGriţco, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Darian Pavli, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 November 2015,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr İbrahim HalilYahli, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr İ. Akmeşe, a lawyer practising in İstanbul.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. In April 2006, a criminal investigation was initiated against the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation.
5. On 25 September 2006 the public prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant and another accused with the Istanbul Assize Court.
6. On 2 October 2006, 1 February 2007, 12 June 2007, and 22 November 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court held four hearings and at the last hearing the applicant was acquitted of the charges against him.
7. The public prosecutor appealed.
8. On 11 April 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first instance court.
9. Subsequently, on 15 July 2011 the applicant lodged an application with the Court alleging that the length of the criminal proceedings had exceeded the reasonable time requirement foreseen under Article 6 of the Convention.
10. In the meantime, on 9 January 2013 a new Compensation Commission was established by Law no. 6384 to deal inter alia with complaints concerning the length of proceedings. Further to this development in domestic law, in the case of Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 47‑58, 26 March 2013), the Court held that this new remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings. Consequently, on 21 May 2013 the applicant’s case before the Court was declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, Yahli v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54599/11).
11. The applicant then applied to the Compensation Commission. By a decision dated 18 July 2013 the Compensation Commission dismissed the applicant’s case, holding that the overall duration of the criminal proceedings had not constituted a breach of Article 6 of the Convention. In reaching this conclusion, the Compensation Commission underlined the fact that the proceedings had lasted for four years and six months before two levels of jurisdiction. Referring to the case-law of the Court, (Çaplik v. Turkey, no. 57019/00, 15 July 2005; Özsoy v. Turkey, no. 58397/00, 2 February 2006; Aydoğan and Others v. Turkey, no. 41967/02, 2 December 2008; Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 56015/00, 24 January 2008; Fehmi Koç v. Turkey, no. 71354/01, 27 March 2007 and AyhanIşık v. Turkey, no. 33102/04, 30 March 2010), the Compensation Commission concluded that the proceedings which had been initiated against two accused persons had been complex and no fault could be attributed to the domestic authorities.
12. The applicant filed an objection against this decision and on 18 September 2013 the Ankara Regional Administrative Court rejected his case, finding in line with the conclusions of the Compensation Commission.
13. Subsequently, the applicant filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court and alleged that the length of the criminal proceedings had been excessive. On 9 September 2015 the Constitutional Court dismissed the case holding that the overall length of the proceedings, which was four years and six months before two levels of jurisdiction, could not be considered as unreasonable.
COMPLAINT
14. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings could not be considered as reasonable.
THE LAW
15. The applicant alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings had been excessive. In his opinion, although the overall length of the proceedings had been four years and six months, following the appeal lodged by the public prosecutor, the Court of Cassation had remained inactive for a period of three years and four months.
16. The Government contested the allegations.
17. The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 25 September 2006 and ended on 11 April 2011with the decision of the Court of Cassation. They therefore lasted for four years and six months before two levels of jurisdiction.
18. The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.
19. The Court observes that the present case was examined before two levels of jurisdiction. It is true that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation lasted for three years and four months and that such a delay could have been minimised. However, the Court recalls that a delay at some stage may be tolerated if the overall duration of the proceedings cannot be deemed excessive (see, for example,Çaplik v. Turkey, no. 57019/00, §§ 36‑40, 15 July 2005).
20. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the total duration of the proceedings of four years and six months does not give rise to any appearance of a violation of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1.
21. 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.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2019.
Hasan Bakırcı ValeriuGriţco
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply