The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 November 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Işıl Karakaş, Peer Lorenzen, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 August 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Hüseyin Aslan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Malatya. He was represented before the Court by Mr K. Akgüneş, a lawyer practising in Malatya. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3. On 30 July 2002 a committee of nine doctors drew up a medical report in respect of the applicant at the Diyarbakır State Hospital. The report...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 60375/11 Hüseyin ASLAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 November 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Işıl Karakaş, Peer Lorenzen, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 August 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Hüseyin Aslan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Malatya. He was represented before the Court by Mr K. Akgüneş, a lawyer practising in Malatya. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3. On 30 July 2002 a committee of nine doctors drew up a medical report in respect of the applicant at the Diyarbakır State Hospital. The report noted that the applicant, who had been receiving treatment at the Hospital for the previous three years, suffered from panic disorder and did not
2 ASLAN v. TURKEY DECISION respond to treatment. It concluded that the disorder rendered him permanently disabled and that his work capability had been reduced by 60%. 4. On 22 March 2004 the applicant underwent another medical examination at the Lice Polyclinic. The doctor performing the examination indicated in his report that the applicant could not be confined in enclosed spaces as he suffered from panic disorder. 1. Criminal proceedings concerning assault and possession of unlicensed arms 5. On 2 April 2009 the Diyarbakır Magistrates’ Court found the applicant guilty of causing injury to a third person and being unlawfully in possession of a knife pursuant to Article 86 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 5237) and Section 15 of the Law on Firearms and Knives (Law no. 6136). The court sentenced the applicant to a total of seven months’ imprisonment and a fine and deferred the sentence pursuant to Article 51 of the Criminal Code (hapis cezasının ertelenmesi) on the condition that he did not reoffend during the following one year. It stated that the sentence would be executed in the event that the applicant committed an offence during the one-year period. 6. The applicant did not appeal against the judgment and it became final on 4 May 2009. 2. Criminal proceedings concerning buying, transferring and possessing unlicensed arms 7. On 3 June 2010 the Diyarbakır Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction sentenced the applicant to a fine for unlawfully being in possession of a firearm, pursuant to Section 13 of Law no. 6136. The court also noted that the applicant had a previous conviction which had been deferred and forwarded its judgment to the Diyarbakır Magistrates’ Court in order for it to execute its previous judgment. 8. On 25 March 2011 the applicant filed an appeal. However, on 8 April 2011 the court rejected ...