BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF TANYOLAÇ v. TURKEY
(Application no. 63964/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 October 2006
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Tanyolaç v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr B.M. Zupančič,
President,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr C. Bîrsan,
Mr V.
Zagrebelsky,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mr David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Mrs I. Ziemele, judges,
and Mr V.
Berger, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 September 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an
application (no. 63964/00) against the
Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Turkish national, Mr Mehmet Aziz
Tanyolaç (“the applicant”), on 13 June 2000.
- The applicant was
represented by Mr A. Koyuncu, a lawyer practising in Ankara.
- On 7 September 2004
the Court (Fourth Section) declared the application partly
inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the
length of the proceedings. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the
application at the same time.
- On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of
its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly
composed Third Section (Rule 52 § 1).
THE FACTS
- The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul.
- On 2 March 1993 the Istanbul Public Prosecutor's Office
filed an indictment against the applicant and seven other suspects
for bribery and being an accessory to bribery in transactions
concerning medical equipment supplied to various polyclinics. The
prosecutor requested that the applicant be charged and convicted
under Articles 80, 212 § 2 and 216 of the Criminal Code.
- On 9 March 1993 the Istanbul Assize Court commenced the
trial against the applicant and the other suspects. It held its first
hearing on 13 April 1993, in which it heard statements from the
suspects.
- On 30 June 1993 the court decided to seek an expert
opinion on the financial records and transactions of the relevant
polyclinics. It requested a list of experts from the University of
Istanbul. On 12 July 1993 it appointed 3 experts.
- The trial resumed on 10 September 1993, shortly after
the judicial recess. Upon the withdrawal of an expert, the court
appointed a new one.
- On 28 December 1993 the court decided to notify the
experts about the time limits for the submission of their report. On
1 February 1994 the court notified the defendants that the experts
had requested an extension of time. With no objections submitted, the
court granted it.
- On 10 May 1994 the report was submitted. The following
day, the court held a hearing. The applicant's representative stated
the he would submit his observations at a later date and the court
granted a period time.
- Shortly after the judicial recess, the court held a
hearing in which it obtained the prosecutor's observations. The
defendants were granted a further period of time for their defence
submissions.
- On 11 October 1994 the court acquitted the defendants
for lack of evidence.
- Upon the appeal by the Ministry of Health, however,
the Court of Cassation quashed this ruling on 11 July 1995 in respect
of the applicant and five other suspects.
- On 6 October 1995 the Istanbul Assize Court
recommenced the trial. The applicant's representative requested an
extension of time, which the court granted. Since the applicant and
some of the co-defendants did not attend, the court summoned them for
the next hearing and postponed the proceedings.
- On 16 January 1996 the court took the statement of one
of the defendants who had not attended an earlier hearing.
- At the hearing dated 9 April 1996, the applicant's
representative submitted a petition requesting the court to expand
the scope of its factual examination. Among his specific requests was
the ordering of a new expert report. In addition, a co-defendant
requested a rectification review of the Court of Cassation's
decision.
- The court denied these requests, holding that they
were unwarranted under the circumstances and could only be intended
to prolong the proceedings. Nonetheless, it granted the motion for a
new expert examination restricted to the amounts of bribery and the
transactional connections among the defendants.
- The applicant's legal representative did not attend
the next hearing.
- The new expert report was submitted on 24 June 1996.
The next day, the court held a hearing in which it granted the
defendants additional time for their observations.
- Following the judicial recess, the court held a
hearing on 4 October 1996, in which the representative of one of the
co-defendants requested the proceedings to be stayed until a final
ruling on their rectification review before the Court of Cassation.
Another motion was submitted asking the court to appoint yet another
expert. The court denied both motions.
- Neither the applicant, nor his representatives
attended seven consecutive hearings held between 19 November 1996 and
9 April 1997.
- At the next hearing held on 28 May 1997, the
applicant's representative requested additional time to submit
further observations, which the court granted.
- In addition, some of the applicants reiterated their
request for the expansion of the factual examination. Once again, the
court denied it, holding that it was aimed at prolonging the
proceedings.
- The applicant and his representative did not attend
the next hearing held on 1 July 1997, in which the prosecution
submitted its observations on the merits. The court granted the
defendants time to submit their counter observations.
- The applicant and his representative also failed to
attend four of the subsequent hearings held between 1 October 1997
and 20 March 1998.
- On 8 May 1998 the court granted an extension of time
to the defendants for their final observations. During the following
four months, it obtained submissions from each defendant.
- On 22 September 1998 the court convicted the applicant
of being an accessory to bribery. It considered the amount of the
bribery relatively small and sentenced him to one year, ten months
and twenty days' imprisonment and fined him 29,108,333 Turkish liras
(TRL).
- On an unspecified date the applicant appealed.
- Upon the applicant's specific request, the Court of
Cassation scheduled a hearing for 8 March 2000. Having heard the
applicant's final statement, the Court of Cassation upheld the
judgment on 29 March 2000, by amending the duration of the prison
sentence and the amount of the fine.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
- The applicant complained that the length of the
proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement, provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which
reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The Government contested that argument. They submitted
that the case was rather complex, both from a factual and legal point
of view. The proceedings involved multiple defendants, the
preparation of expert reports, the hearing and cross-examining of
witnesses, and the review of numerous procedural motions. Notably, at
several hearings, no taking of evidence was possible due to the
absence of one or more of the defendants and/or their
representatives.
- Accordingly, the Government were of the view that
there had not been a delay attributable to the State authorities.
- The applicant did not specifically address the
Government's arguments. He maintained instead that the Court of
Cassation's final decision – i.e. upholding with amendment –
had resulted from the excessive length of the proceedings at the
first instance level.
- He submitted that “upholding with amendment”
was an unusual ruling. He argued that the normal practice for the
Court of Cassation would be to quash the judgment with instructions
on the determination of the sentence. In such a case, he claimed, the
assize court could have persuaded the Court of Cassation by insisting
on its previous sentencing.
- The Court recalls that the complaint about the Court
of Cassation's divergence from the initial sentence had already been
declared inadmissible at an earlier stage. The Court therefore
focuses on the length of the proceedings only.
- In that connection, the period to be taken into
account began on 2 March 1993 when the prosecutor indicted the
applicant, and ended on 27 March 2000 when the Court of
Cassation upheld the conviction.
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that given the overall length of the
proceedings, this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes
that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore
be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the
length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the
circumstances of the case and with reference to the following
criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant
and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities,
Cesarini v. Italy, judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A
no. 245 B, p. 26, § 17).
- The Court considers that the subject matter of the
case before the domestic courts was undoubtedly complex, as shown,
inter alia, by the number of defendants, the economic nature
of the crime, the technical expertise needed for its investigation,
and the examination of financial records and books of various
polyclinics and the bank accounts of the parties involved. Moreover,
throughout the proceedings, a number of witnesses were heard and two
expert examinations were conducted.
- The applicant failed to point to any period during
which the authorities were inactive or could have acted differently
so as to avoid any delays. To the contrary, the case file
demonstrates that the judicial authorities acted with due diligence.
- The assize court, for instance, rejected a number of
procedural motions, inter alia, for an appointment of new
experts, expansion of the factual examination or stay of proceedings,
with an eye to avoid any unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings.
- The same court scheduled hearings at reasonably short
intervals; mostly once in every month or two. Similarly, it promptly
held hearings upon the submission of expert reports and after each
judicial recess.
- Whenever evidence or statements could not be taken due
to the absence of one or more of the defendants, the court ordered
their presence at the next hearing.
- In addition, it specifically instructed the experts to
observe the statutory time limits for their submissions.
- Thus, the Court finds nothing in the case file that
suggests that the judicial authorities failed to proceed with the
requisite diligence or that there was any time of inactivity
attributable to them.
- The conduct of the applicant, on the other hand, was
far from exemplary. He and/or his representative failed to attend at
least thirteen hearings, some of which were consecutive. On many
occasions, his representative requested additional time for his
submissions, which resulted in the further prolongation of the
proceedings.
- Finally, neither the applicant nor his representative
has objected to the granting of additional time to the experts, which
factor seemingly delayed the examination of the merits at an earlier
stage of the trial.
- In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Court
finds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the remainder of the application
admissible;
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 October 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President
