THIRD SECTION
CASE OF TURĞAY v.
(Application no.
21085/02)
JUDGMENT
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 Turğay
v.
The European Court of Human Rights (Third
Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr B.M.
Zupančič,
President,
Mr C.
Bîrsan,
Mr R.
Türmen,
Mrs A.
Gyulumyan,
Mr E.
Myjer,
Mr David Thór Björgvinsson,
Mrs I.
Berro-Lefèvre,
judges,
and Mr S.
Quesada,
Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on
Delivers the following judgment, which was
adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an
application (no. 21085/02) against the
2. The Turkish Government
(“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the
proceedings before the Court.
3. On
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE
4. The applicant was born in
1959 and lives in
5. Criminal proceedings were
brought against the applicant by the public prosecutor at the
6. In the course of the
criminal proceedings the applicant was remanded in custody. On
7. On
8. On
9. In March 2006 the applicant was released from prison following the reduction of his sentence in accordance with the provisions of the new Criminal Code.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
10. The relevant domestic law
and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the Göç v. Turkey judgment ([GC], no. 36590/97, § 34, ECHR
2002‑V).
11. On
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6
OF THE CONVENTION
12. The applicant complained that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on him, thus depriving him of the opportunity to put forward his counter-arguments. The applicant relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention.
13. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1, which in so far as relevant provides:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
A. Admissibility
14. The Court notes that 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
15. The Government maintained, in particular, that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor is a short document in which it is briefly stated whether the judgment of the first instance court should be upheld or quashed.
16. The applicants maintained their allegations.
17. The Court notes that it has already examined the same grievance in the past and has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Göç, cited above, § 58; Abdullah Aydın v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 63739/00, § 30, 10 November 2005; and Ayçoban and Others v. Turkey, nos. 42208/02, 43491/02 and 43495/02, 22 December 2005).
18. The Court has examined the present case and finds no particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its findings in the aforementioned cases.
19. There has accordingly
been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE
CONVENTION
20. 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.”
Damage, costs and expenses
21. The applicant claimed
reimbursement of the damages he had sustained as a result of his remand in
custody. In this respect he submitted a comprehensive list. The applicant did
not seek reimbursement of any costs and expenses in connection with the
proceedings before the Court.
22. The Government contested
his claim.
23. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
24. The Court further
considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient
compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Parsil v.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE
COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the remainder of the
application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on
Registrar
President