The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub Popović, President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 May 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Faik Elmas and Mr Hazni Doğan, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1977 and 1984 respectively and live in Istanbul. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Erbil, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case On 6 June 2001 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of making propaganda for an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). On 7 June 2001 they were placed in detention on demand. One of...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 29188/09 Faik ELMAS and Hazni DOGAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub Popović, President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 May 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Faik Elmas and Mr Hazni Doğan, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1977 and 1984 respectively and live in Istanbul. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Erbil, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case On 6 June 2001 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of making propaganda for an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). On 7 June 2001 they were placed in detention on demand. One of the applicants, H.D., who was a minor at the time, was released the same day. On 12 June 2001 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, the applicants with aiding and abetting the PKK. On 19 November 2001 the other applicant, F.E., was released pending trial. In 2004, following a constitutional amendment, State
2 ELMAS AND DOĞAN v. TURKEY DECISION Security Courts were abolished and the applicants’ case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. On 20 May 2009 the Assize Court discontinued the proceedings as the statutory time-limit concerning the charges against the applicants had expired. B. Relevant domestic law A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Müdür Turgut and Others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national court had not been concluded within a reasonable time. The applicants allege violation of Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...” The Court observes that a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey after the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). The Court recalls that in its decision in the case of Turgut and others v. Turkey (no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), it declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies as a new domestic remedy had been env...