The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 June 2017 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Paul Lemmens, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 July 2008, 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 Mehmet Aladağ, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1974 and was detained in Tekirdağ Prison at the time of lodging the application. He was represented before the Court by Mr İ. Akmeşe, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 23...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 41709/08 Mehmet ALADAĞ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 June 2017 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Paul Lemmens, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 July 2008, 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 Mehmet Aladağ, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1974 and was detained in Tekirdağ Prison at the time of lodging the application. He was represented before the Court by Mr İ. Akmeşe, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 23 February 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation and for illegal possession of explosives. 5. On 26 February 2006 the applicant was placed in detention on remand on the order of the investigating judge.
2 ALADAĞ v. TURKEY DECISION 6. On 3 March 2006 the Istanbul Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, charging the applicant with membership of a terrorist organisation and illegal possession of explosives, under Articles 174 and 314 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 5237). 7. Between 15 June 2006 and 8 April 2008 the Istanbul 9th Assize Court held seven hearings. At the end of each hearing the court reviewed the applicant’s pre-trial detention. Taking into account the seriousness of the offence with which the applicant had been charged and the state of the evidence, it decided to keep him in detention. The applicant and his lawyer were present at each hearing. 8. After the third hearing, held on 21 December 2006, the applicant filed an objection against the detention order and asked to be released. On 28 December 2006 the Istanbul 10th Assize Court rejected the applicant’s request after examining it on the basis of the case file, without holding a hearing. When delivering its decision the Assize court took into account a written opinion filed by the public prosecutor, which was not communicated to the applicant or his lawyer. 9. A sixth hearing was held on 6 December 2007, after which, on 30 January 2008, the Assize court held a hearing to review the applicant’s detention. The hearing was held ex proprio motu, pursuant to Article 108 of Law no. 5271, and the decision was delivered on the basis of the case file. 10. On 8 April 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a total of ten years’ imprisonment and a fine. 11. On 9 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court’s judgment without holding a hearing. COMPLAINTS 12. ...