Şükran Yıldız v. Turkey (4661/02)

Date	20090203
Article	6(3)
Decision	violation

The applicants are three Turkish nationals: Nusret Amutgan who was born in 1970 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Gaziantep H-type Prison; Ali Çimen who was born in 1969 and lives in Izmir; and, Şükran Yıldız who was born in 1980 and lives in Diyarbakır. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), all the applicants complained that they had been denied access to a lawyer when taken into police custody on suspicion of being involved in illegal armed organisations. Ali Çimen further complained about the unfairness of the proceedings in his case before the Court of Cassation, in breach of Article 6 § 1. Şükran Yıldız further complained that the length of her detention on remand had been excessive and that she had had no effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of that detention on remand, in breach of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security). The Court held unanimously that in all three cases there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 on account of the applicants not having had access to a lawyer while in police custody. The Court found a further violation of Article 6 § 1 in the case of Çimen in respect of the non-communication to the applicant of the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. In the case of Şükran Yıldız the Court, having noted that the applicant had spent over 4 years and 3 month in pre-trial detention and had been a minor at the time, found a violation of Article 5 § 3. It also held that Ms Yildiz had not been able to challenge effectively the lawfulness of her pre-trial detention, in violation of Article 5 § 4. The Court awarded Mr Amutgan EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses, and Ms Yildiz EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. Mr Çimen failed to submit his claims for just satisfaction within the prescribed time-limit. Nevertheless, the Court considered that the most appropriate form of redress would be the retrial of the applicant should he so request. (The judgments are available only in English.)