This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. METİNOĞLU v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Metinoğlu v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mr G. RESS, President, Mr I. CABRAL BARRETO, Mr L. CAFLISCH, Mr B. ZUPANČIČ, Mrs H.S. GREVE, Mr K. TRAJA, judges, Mr F. GÖLCÜKLÜ, ad hoc judge, and Mr V. BERGER, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 31 August 1999 and 17 January 2002, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 29700/96) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF METİNOĞLU v. TURKEY (Application no. 29700/96) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 February 2002 FINAL 07/05/2002 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
METİNOĞLU v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Metinoğlu v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mr G. RESS, President, Mr I. CABRAL BARRETO, Mr L. CAFLISCH, Mr B. ZUPANČIČ, Mrs H.S. GREVE, Mr K. TRAJA, judges, Mr F. GÖLCÜKLÜ, ad hoc judge, and Mr V. BERGER, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 31 August 1999 and 17 January 2002, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 29700/96) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Hayati Metinoğlu (“the applicant”), on 21 November 1995. 2. The applicant was represented by Mrs Semra Dural Esim, a lawyer practising in Muğla (Turkey). The Turkish Government did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. 3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. 4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5. The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court. Mr Rıza Türmen, the judge elected in respect of Turkey, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr Feyyaz Gölcüklü to sit as an ad hoc judge, in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 6. The President of the Chamber decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the present application should be joined to other applications against the same respondent State raising the same
2 METİNOĞLU v. TURKEY JUDGMENT complaint (applications nos. 28291/95, 29280/95, 26699/96, 29701/96, 29702/96, 29703/96, 29911/96, 29912/96, 29913/96, 31831/96, 31834/96, 31853/96, 31880/96, 31891/96, 31960/96, 32964/96, 32987/96, 32900/96, 33362/96, 33369/96, 33645/96, 34591/96, 34687/96, 39428/96 and 43362/96) (Rule 43 § 2). 7. By a decision of 31 August 1999, having obtained the parties’ observations, the Court declared the application admissible. 8. The applicant and the Government each filed observations on...