Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of Court (Fourth Section), May 22, 2007 (case CASE OF BÜLBÜL v. TURKEY)
|Resolution Date:||May 22, 2007|
|Issuing Organization:||Court (Fourth Section)|
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) - claim dismissed
CASE OF BÜLBÜL v. TURKEY
(Application no. 47297/99)
22 May 2007
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bülbül v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President, Mr J. Casadevall, Mr G. Bonello, Mr R. Türmen, Mr K. Traja, Mr S. Pavlovschi, Ms L. Mijović, judges,and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 May 2007,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
The case originated in an application (no. 47297/99) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Kemal Bülbül (“the applicant”), on 22 December 1998.
The applicant was represented by Mr L. Kanat, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.
On 4 March 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Ankara. At the time of the events, he was the provincial leader of HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi - People's Democracy Party) in Ankara.
On 18 November 1998 the military judge sitting on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court ordered the applicant's detention in absentia. According to the detention order, the applicant was suspected of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party).
On 19 November 1998 police officers conducted a search in the Ankara office of HADEP and the applicant was taken into police custody. In the search and arrest protocol, which was signed by the applicant, it was explained that the applicant was taken into custody pursuant to the detention order issued the day before by the Ankara State Security Court. Following his arrest, the applicant was brought before the military judge of the Ankara State Security Court and, on his order, was placed in detention on remand.
On 26 November 1998 the applicant filed an appeal against the detention order and requested his release.
On 27 November 1998, having regard to the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence, the Ankara State Security Court -composed of three judges including a military judge- dismissed the applicant's appeal.
On 8 December 1998 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with aiding and abetting the PKK under Article 169 of the Criminal Code.
On 12 July 1999 the applicant was released pending trial.
On 24 February 2000 the Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting the PKK and sentenced him to three years and nine months' imprisonment.
While the proceedings were pending before the Court of Cassation, on 21 December 2000 new legislation (Law No. 4616), which governed the conditional release, suspension of proceedings or execution of sentences in respect of offences committed before 23 April 1999, came into force. Accordingly, on 23 January 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.
On 2 May 2001 the Ankara State Security Court suspended the proceedings against the applicant. According to Law No. 4616, these proceedings would be resumed only if the applicant were to commit an offence of the same or more serious kind within five years of the court's decision to suspend the proceedings.
It appears from the documents in the file that no charges have been brought against the applicant during the period of suspension.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 §§ 3 and 4 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant maintained that the military judge who ordered his detention on remand and the court which decided on his appeal against the detention order were not independent and impartial. In this connection, he invoked Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, which in so far as...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL