This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. RAMAZANOĞLU v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Ramazanoğlu v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of Mr J.-P. COSTA, President, Mr A.B. BAKA, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr K. JUNGWIERT, Mr V. BUTKEVYCH, Mrs W. THOMASSEN Mr M. UGREKHELIDZE, judges, and Mrs S. DOLLÉ, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 10 September 2002 and on 20 May 2003, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 39810/98) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF RAMAZANOĞLU v. TURKEY (Application no. 39810/98) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 June 2003 FINAL 10/09/2003 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
RAMAZANOĞLU v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Ramazanoğlu v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of Mr J.-P. COSTA, President, Mr A.B. BAKA, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr K. JUNGWIERT, Mr V. BUTKEVYCH, Mrs W. THOMASSEN Mr M. UGREKHELIDZE, judges, and Mrs S. DOLLÉ, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 10 September 2002 and on 20 May 2003, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 39810/98) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Osman Nuri Ramazanoğlu (“the applicant”), on 16 December 1997. 2. The applicant was represented by Mrs Oya Ersoy Ataman, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. 3. The applicant alleged that his right to a fair hearing was breached because the criminal proceedings brought against him were not concluded within a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5. The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. 6. By a decision of 10 September 2002 the Court declared the application admissible in so far as it had been communicated to the Government.
2 RAMAZANOĞLU v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 7. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Second Section (Rule 52 § 1). 8. The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A. Arrest and detention of the applicant 9. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul. 10. On 15 September 1981 police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate arrested the applicant at his mother’s house in the Safranbolu district of Zonguldak on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). He was placed in custody at the Ankara Security Directorate. The applicant s...