Şahin Karakoç v. Turkey (19462/04)
| Date | 20080429 |
|---|---|
| Article | 6(1) |
| Decision | no viol. |
No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
Şahin Karakoç v. Turkey (no. 19462/04)
The applicant, Şahin Karakoç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul.
In January 1996 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of having participated in a terrorist raid on Başbağlar (Turkey) in which 33 of its villagers were killed. He was released in February 1997. Ultimately acquitted, he brought proceedings in which he complained about his unjustified detention and, in November 2001, was awarded compensation. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained about the length and unfairness of those compensation proceedings.
The Court noted that Mr Karakoç had, in compliance with the domestic provisions, been heard by the judge rapporteur, in the absence of the two other judges, the public prosecutor or the defendant party. It considered that those circumstances amounted to a lack of a hearing and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
However, although the applicant had not been notified of the public prosecutor’s first written opinion with regard to the judgment of November 2001, that judgment had subsequently been quashed and the applicant’s claims had been re-examined during which the public prosecutor had made a second written opinion. That second opinion had been communicated to the applicant and, therefore, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.
Furthermore, given the complexity of the case, the Court did not find that the length of the proceedings against the applicant - four years and eight months - had been excessive. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of proceedings.
The Court also held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, and awarded him EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)