The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Rıza Türmen, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Danutė Jočienė, András Sajó, Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 December 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Hüseyin Aslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Antalya. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Bektaş, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 8100/03 by Hüseyin ASLAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Rıza Türmen, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Danutė Jočienė, András Sajó, Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 December 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Hüseyin Aslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Antalya. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Bektaş, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 12 October 1980 the applicant was arrested.
2 ASLAN v. TURKEY DECISION On 7 November 1980 the Ankara Martial Law Court ordered his detention on remand. Subsequently, the public prosecutor attached to the Ankara Martial Law Court charged the applicant with membership of an illegal organisation, Dev-Yol (Devrimci Yol - the Revolutionary Way). On 18 May 1987 the applicant was released pending trial. On 19 July 1989 the Ankara Martial Law Court convicted the applicant under Article 146 § 3 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed. On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court, holding that the applicant should have been convicted under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code. Subsequent to the promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Ankara Assize Court acquired jurisdiction in the applicant’s case. On 16 July 2002 the Ankara Assize Court convicted the applicant under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to sixteen years and eight months’ imprisonment. On 28 May 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 16 July 2002 and remitted the case to the Ankara Assize Court. On 3 October 2006 the Ankara Assize Court once again convicted the applicant under Article 146 § 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to sixteen years and eight months’ imprisonment. According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation. COMPLAINT The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings brought against him were incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE LAW The Court received the following decla...