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]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF ULAŞ ÇELİK v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 47115/99)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24
July 2007
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 Ulaş Çelik v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights
(Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Mr J. Casadevall,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr R.
Türmen,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S.
Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 July 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 47115/99) 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 Ulaş Çelik
(“the applicant”), on 21 October 1998.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr H. Atmaz, a lawyer practising in
Ankara. The Turkish Government did not designate an Agent for the
purposes of the proceedings before the Court.
- On
4 October 2005 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible
and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the alleged
unfairness of the proceedings against the applicant on account of the
lack of independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security
Court to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3
of the Convention, it further decided to examine the merits of the
application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Ankara.
- On
19 July 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody by officers
from the anti-terror branch of the Ankara Security Directorate in the
course of an operation carried out against an illegal organisation,
namely the DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation
Party-Front).
- On
31 July 1995 the applicant was brought before a judge who
ordered his detention on remand.
- On
16 August 1995 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security
Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant as well as
twelve other persons with membership of an illegal organisation, an
offence defined in Article 168 § 2 of the Turkish
Criminal Code.
- On
5 June 1997 the Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicant
of aiding and abetting the members of the DHKP/C, an offence defined
in Article 169 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to two years
and six months’ imprisonment.
- The
applicant appealed against the judgment.
- On
17 April 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the Ankara State Security
Court’s judgment.
- On
an unspecified date the applicant was released from detention.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are
outlined in Özel v. Turkey (no. 42739/98,
§§ 20-21, 7 November 2002) and Gençel
v. Turkey (no. 53431/99, §§ 11-12, 23 October
2003).
- By
Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the official journal on 30
June 2004, the State Security Courts were abolished.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant submitted that he had been denied a fair hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a
military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court which
tried and convicted him. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1
of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:
“1. In the determination of ... any criminal
charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing
... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this part of the application 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
Government maintained that the State Security Courts had been
established by law to deal with threats to the security and integrity
of the State. They submitted that, in the instant case, there was no
basis on which to find that the applicant could have had any
legitimate doubts about the independence of the Ankara State Security
Court. The Government further referred to the abolition of
the State Security Courts in 2004.
- The Court has examined a large number of cases raising
similar issues to those in the present case and in which it found a
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Özel,
cited above, §§ 33-34; Özdemir v. Turkey,
no. 59659/00, §§ 35-36, 6 February 2003).
- The
Court finds no reason to reach a different conclusion in the instant
case. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE
CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
- The applicant did not submit any claim for just
satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention taken together with
Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. In these circumstances, the Court
considers that there is no reason to award any sum under Article 41
of the Convention (see Ciucci v. Italy, no. 68345/01,
§ 33, 1 June 2006).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the remainder of the application
admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Ankara State Security
Court’s lack of independence and impartiality.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 July 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Araci Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
