The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 February 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Julia Laffranque, President, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Paul Lemmens, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 June 2004, 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 Cem Kalabalık, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Edremit. He is represented before the Court by Ms G.G. Günal, a lawyer practising in Ankara. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties,...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 26364/04 Cem KALABALIK against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 February 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Julia Laffranque, President, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Paul Lemmens, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 June 2004, 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 Cem Kalabalık, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Edremit. He is represented before the Court by Ms G.G. Günal, a lawyer practising in Ankara. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
2 KALABALIK v. TURKEY DECISION 4. At the time of the events, the applicant was a first lieutenant in the Turkish Armed Forces. In 2002 the military public prosecutor initiated an investigation against the applicant for embezzlement. 5. On 14 June 2002 the applicant was questioned by the military public prosecutor and the military judge respectively, without the presence of his lawyer. Before both authorities the applicant admitted to having committed the offence. The same day, he was remanded in custody. 6. On 18 June 2002 the applicant’s representative objected to the decision ordering his detention on remand. The objection was dismissed by the Military Court of the Gendarmerie Command on 19 June 2002. 7. On 21 June 2002 the military public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the General Staff Land Forces Military Court (“military court”) and charged the applicant with embezzlement. He asked the court to sentence the applicant to five years’ imprisonment and to remove him from his post, pursuant to Sections 131 and 30/B of the Military Criminal Code. 8. It appears from the documents in the case-file that in the course of the proceedings before the military court the applicant retracted his statement of 14 June 2002, claiming that they had been made when he was in a fragile psychological state. However, throughout the proceedings a number of witnesses were heard before the trial court whose statements supported the applicant’s initial confession. In addition, an expert psychiatrist expressed the view that the applicant had acted with criminal intent. 9. On 20 December 2002 the military court rendered its judgment. On the basis of the applicant’s statements of 14 June 2002 and other supporting evidence, particularly the witness testimonies, the court found the applicant guilty of embezzlement, pursuant to Section 131 of the Military Criminal Code. However, it qualified it as a minor act of embezzlement (az vahim hal zimm...