The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31 May 2016 as a Committee composed of: Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Milan Blaško, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 May 2004, 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 Mustafa Esen, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Mardin. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Beştaş, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 23 November 2003 a search was...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 34368/04 Mustafa ESEN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31 May 2016 as a Committee composed of: Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Milan Blaško, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 May 2004, 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 Mustafa Esen, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Mardin. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Beştaş, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 23 November 2003 a search was conducted at the applicant’s house and the police seized several envelopes each of which had names and numbers on it and also a pistol whose possession permit had expired. At the same day, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fundraising on behalf of PKK, an illegal armed organisation.
2 ESEN v. TURKEY DECISION 5. On 24 November 2003 the Derik Magistrates’ Court placed the applicant in detention on remand having regard to the state of the evidence and the nature of the offence. 6. On 4 December 2003 the applicant’s representative applied for the applicant’s release from detention on remand. On an unspecified date this application was dismissed. The related decision was not submitted to the Court. 7. On 29 December 2003 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court accusing the applicant of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation, an offence under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). 8. On an unspecified date the applicant’s representative again applied for the applicant’s release from detention on remand. 9. On 31 December 2003 the State Security Court held a preparatory hearing and dismissed the applicant’s application for release. 10. On 12 February 2004 the first hearing was held and the State Security Court released the applicant. 11. According to the information in the file, on an unspecified date the applicant was acquitted. THE LAW A. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 12. Relying on Articles 5 § 4 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that there had been no effective remedy provided by the domestic legal system whereby he could effectively challenge his detention on remand. 13. The Court considers that the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 should be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, being the lex specialis in the matter. 14. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 entitles an arre...