The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Nicolas Bratza, President, Giovanni Bonello, David Thór Björgvinsson, Ján Šikuta, Päivi Hirvelä, Ledi Bianku, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 November 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. 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 The applicant, Mr Özgür Akgöçmen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Ankara. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Cengiz, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 43840/02 by Özgür AKGÖÇMEN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Nicolas Bratza, President, Giovanni Bonello, David Thór Björgvinsson, Ján Šikuta, Päivi Hirvelä, Ledi Bianku, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 November 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. 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 The applicant, Mr Özgür Akgöçmen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Ankara. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Cengiz, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
2 AKGÖÇMEN v. TURKEY DECISION A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was a notary in Erdemli, a district of Mersin, at the time of the events giving rise to the present application. On 12 May 1999 the Erdemli Tax Office notified the Erdemli public prosecutor’s office that the applicant had failed to submit the stamp duty of 2, 000,000,000 Turkish liras1 (TRL) acquired as a result of notary transactions for the period of 16 December 1998 and 31 December 1998. On 13 May 1999 the Erdemli public prosecutor (“the prosecutor”) heard the applicant. The latter submitted, inter alia, that he was unable to pay the stamp duty of TRL 2, 000,000,000 due to economic difficulties. According to the investigation report drafted by the prosecutor on 14 May 1999 the applicant had failed to declare TRL 2, 000,000,000 and had only submitted TRL 225,129,000 to the tax office whereas in his books it was stated that he had paid TRL 2, 225,129,000. On 22 July 1999 the Tarsus public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Tarsus Assize Court against the applicant charging him with abuse of office under Article 240 of the Criminal Code. The prosecutor further requested that the case be examined by the Mersin Assize Court. On 30 July 1999 the applicant paid the relevant amount to the Erdemli tax department. On 9 September 1999 the Tarsus Assize Court referred the case to the Mersin Assize Court as requested. On 26 October 1999 the Tarsus public prosecutor filed a further bill of indictment with the Tarsus Assize Court against the applicant, charging him with embezzlement under Article 202 of the Criminal Code as he had failed to pay value added tax of December 1998 and February 1999 to the relevant tax department. He further requested that the...