The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 June 2017 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Paul Lemmens, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 November 2011, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 71750/11) 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 Ali Hıdır POLAT (“the applicant”), on 4 November 2011. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3. On 3 January 2013 the complaint...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 71750/11 Ali Hıdır POLAT against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 June 2017 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Paul Lemmens, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 November 2011, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 71750/11) 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 Ali Hıdır POLAT (“the applicant”), on 4 November 2011. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3. On 3 January 2013 the complaint concerning the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was communicated to the Government. 4. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it.
2 POLAT v. TURKEY DECISION THE FACTS 5. The applicant, Mr Ali Hıdır Polat, was born in 1960 and lives in Bursa. A. The circumstances of the case 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 8 September 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being one of the leaders of the MLKP, an illegal organization. 8. On 12 September 2006 the applicant was placed in detention on remand by the Istanbul Assize Court. 9. On 17 May 2007 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed his indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court. 10. On 26 October 2007 the first hearing was held before the Istanbul Assize Court. 11. Between 26 October 2007 and 17 May 2011 the court held twelve hearings and ordered the applicant’s continued detention on remand. 12. On 17 May 2011 the applicant was released pending trial. 13. At the time of the application, the proceedings were pending before the first-instance court. B. Relevant domestic law and practice 14. A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 58271/10, § 34-35, 13 September 2016). COMPLAINT 15. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 the Convention that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive. He maintained that his detention had been unnecessary and that the reasons in the decisions were stereotype. THE LAW 16. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand.
POLAT v. TURKEY DECISION 3 17. The Government rejected the allegation, submitting that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, referring to the possibility of claiming compensation for unlawful detention under Article 141 § 1 ...