The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 November 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 August 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Nedim Mısırlı, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1948 and is currently serving his prison sentence in Karabük Prison. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2003, the Ministry of Finance carried out an investigation in the Gaziantep Provincial Treasury Department. At the time of the events the applicant was the head of this department and suspected of bribery. A contravention report was issued against the applicant. The report concluded that criminal proceedings should be...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 35199/07 Nedim MISIRLI against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 November 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 August 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Nedim Mısırlı, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1948 and is currently serving his prison sentence in Karabük Prison. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2003, the Ministry of Finance carried out an investigation in the Gaziantep Provincial Treasury Department. At the time of the events the applicant was the head of this department and suspected of bribery. A contravention report was issued against the applicant. The report concluded that criminal proceedings should be initiated. On 1 April 2004 the Inspection Board of Ministry of Finance (Maliye Bakanlığı Teftiş Kurulu – “the Board”), after having questioned several officials and civilians and audited the relevant companies’ accounts, issued an investigation report claiming, inter alia, that the applicant took bribes during his term in office. The report indicated that criminal proceedings should be initiated. On 15 April 2004 the Gaziantep public prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant for bribery, together with two other persons.
2 NEDIM MISIRLI v. TURKEY DECISION On 30 June 2004 the Gaziantep Assize Court “the court” heard Y.S. as a witness. In his statements, Y.S. stated that he had been working at the company (“YST Ltd.”) owned by the applicant’s co-accused, M.S.H., at the material time. The applicant had been coming to M.S.H.’s office especially on tax refund days. He had given money to the applicant as a bribe on several occasions at M.S.H.’s request. He further stated that the information about the money given to the applicant was recorded in the company’s ledger in handwriting. At the end of the hearing the assize court filed a criminal complaint against Y.S. On an unspecified date the Gaziantep public prosecutor filed an additional indictment against Y.S. charging him with bribery. On 4 August 2004 the court took a witness statement from M.Ş.Ç. He stated that he had been the chauffeur of the applicant’s co-accused, M.S.H., and he had been driving the applicant to M.S.H.’s office three or four times a week on tax refund days. On the same day Y.S. gave a statement repeating his former statements. He added that he had given money to the applicant in an envelope on several occasions, but these were not intended to be bribes. On 13 September 2004 the court called M.Y., department chief of the relevant tax office at the material time, as a witness. He stated that the applicant had been visiting the tax office on the YST Ltd.’s tax refund days. When the applicant was p...