The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 December 2006 as a Chamber composed of: Mr B.M. ZUPANČIČ, President, Mr J. HEDIGAN, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr C. BÎRSAN, Mr V. ZAGREBELSKY, Mrs A. GYULUMYAN, Mr DAVID THÓR BJÖRGVINSSON, judges, and Mr V. BERGER, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 November 2000, 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr M. Salih Çakan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mrs G. Tuncer, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 67217/01 by Salih ÇAKAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 December 2006 as a Chamber composed of: Mr B.M. ZUPANČIČ, President, Mr J. HEDIGAN, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr C. BÎRSAN, Mr V. ZAGREBELSKY, Mrs A. GYULUMYAN, Mr DAVID THÓR BJÖRGVINSSON, judges, and Mr V. BERGER, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 November 2000, 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr M. Salih Çakan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mrs G. Tuncer, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
2 ÇAKAN v. TURKEY DECISION On 19 July 1994 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of the PKK. On 22 July 1994 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered his remand in custody. On 19 December 1994 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713. On 9 November 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-four years and three months’ imprisonment and to a fine. This judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation on 26 October 1999. On 11 September 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant was also permanently debarred from employment in the civil service. The court taking into account the period of the applicant’s remand in custody ordered his release. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 5 July 2001. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his remand in custody. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had been denied the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. He submitted that his right to be presumed innocent was violated on account of the length of his remand in custody. He further maintained that he had not been informed of the charges against him, that he did not have legal assistance during the investigation and that he had been deprived of his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. In particular the written observations of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation on the merits of h...