SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF TALU v. TURKEY
\n(Application no. 2118\/10)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n19 June 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Talu v. Turkey,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Paul Lemmens, President, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 29 May 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 2118\/10) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Turkish national, Mr MahfuzTalu (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 15 December 2009.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Ms M.Dan\u0131\u015fBe\u015fta\u015f and Mr\u00a0M.\u00a0Be\u015fta\u015f, lawyers practising in Diyarbak\u0131r. The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 December 2012the application was declared partly inadmissible and the complaints concerning the effectiveness of the procedure by which the applicant could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, and his right to compensation in this respect were communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Siirt.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 January 2009 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation and disseminating its propaganda.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 January 2009 the applicant was brought before the Siirt Magistrates\u2019 Court, who ordered his detention on remand taking into account the strong suspicion that he had committed the alleged offences.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 August 2009 the applicant\u2019s lawyer filed an objection against the above decision on the applicant\u2019s detention and requested his release.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 August 2009 the Diyarbak\u0131r public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with disseminating terrorist propaganda, and aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 August 2009, at the end of the preparatory hearing, the Diyarbak\u0131r Assize Court decided to prolong the applicant\u2019s detention on the basis of the case-file.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 September 2009 the Diyarbak\u0131r Assize Court ex officio examined the applicant\u2019s detention on remand on the basis of the case-file and decided to extend it.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 October 2009, at the end of the first hearing before the Diyarbak\u0131r Assize Court, the applicant was released pending trial.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 December 2009 the Diyarbak\u0131r Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him. No appeal was filed and the judgment became final on 8 January 2010.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that, when the application was initially lodged on 15 December 2009, the applicant\u2019s representatives had failed to submit a letter of authority. They claimed that the duly completed and signed letter of authority was submitted subsequently on 20 December 2010, and that therefore, in their view, the applicant failed to lodge his application within the six\u2011month time-limit.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that on 15 December 2009 the applicant\u2019s representatives signed and submitted a complete application form on behalf of the applicant along with a valid power of attorney from the notary public. By a letter of 19 November 2010 the Registry instructed the applicant to submit the duly completed and signed letter of authority.The applicant submitted the requested document without delay, and it was received by the Registry on 20 December 2010. Consequently, the Court confirms that the introduction date of the present application is 15 December 2009,namely the date on which the applicant submitted his duly signed application form (see Kozlitin v. Russia, no. 17092\/04, \u00a7 43, 14 November 2013).<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that the applicationwas submitted within the six-month time-limitand, accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government\u2019s preliminary objection.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a7 4 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention about his inability to appear before the courts when his pre\u2011trial detention was reviewed.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested that argument.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on 13\u00a0January 2009 and was released on 1\u00a0October 2009. During this period, he was not able to appear before a judge.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that it has already examined a similar grievance in the case of Eri\u015fen and Others v.\u00a0Turkey (no. 7067\/06, \u00a7\u00a053, 3 April 2012), and the case of Karaosmano\u011flu and \u00d6zden (no. 4807\/08, \u00a7 76, 17 June 2014 and found a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 in both cases. It has examined the present case and finds no particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its findings in the above-mentioned judgments.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention under this head.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a05 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention that he had been denied the right to compensation for the violation of his right under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested that argument.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that paragraph 5 of Article 5 requires a remedy in compensation for a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4 (Wassink v. the Netherlands, 27 September 1990, \u00a7\u00a038, Series A no. 185\u2011A). This right to compensation presupposes that a violation of one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0In this connection, the Court notes that it has found a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4 in the present case on account of lack of the applicant\u2019s appearance before a court to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention (see paragraphs\u00a020 and 21 above). It also recalls that it has examined a similar issue in the case of Karaosmano\u011flu and \u00d6zden(cited above, \u00a7 72), and found a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention. There is no reason to depart from those findings.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the Court concludes that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 50,000 Turkish liras (TRY)(approximately 9,900\u00a0Euros\u00a0(EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested that claim.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non\u2011pecuniary damage in connection with the violation of the Convention found in his case. Ruling on equitable basis, it awards EUR\u00a0750 to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also claimed a total of TRY 12,000 (approximately EUR\u00a02,400) for legal fees and costs and expenses. In that connection, the representatives submitted a time-sheet showing that they had carried out thirteen and a half hours\u2019 legal work.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested the claim.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, the applicant failed to submit any invoice in respect of his claims for costs and expenses, but submitted\u00a0a time-sheet, showing the hours of work done by his legal representatives. The Court thus considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 1000 in respect of his costs and expenses<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe remainder of the application admissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article\u00a05 \u00a7 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of opportunity to appear before a court to challenge the lawfulness of detention;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article\u00a05 \u00a7 5 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n (i) EUR 750 (seven hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (ii) EUR 1000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on19 June 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Paul Lemmens
\nValeriu Gri\u0163co,
\nSt\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, judges,
\nand Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n