CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 juillet 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 121 July 2009 Cahit Demirel v. Turkey - 18623/03 Judgment 7.7.2009 [Section II] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Respondent State required to adopt general measures to eliminate structural problems of length of pre-trial detention   Facts : In 1996 the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of involvement in the activities of the PKK. He was held in pre-trial detention for a total of six years and four months before the proceedings were ultimately discontinued under the statute of limitations. Law : Articles 5 §§ 3 and 5 and Article 6 § 1 – violations (unanimously). Article 46 – In almost all of its 68 judgments against Turkey where the Court had found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, it had concluded that the domestic courts had ordered the applicants’ continued detention pending trial using identical stereotyped terms, such as “having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the file”, and that they had failed to consider other preventive measures provided for under domestic law, such as a prohibition on leaving the country or release on bail. Similarly, the Court had repeatedly held that there was no remedy in Turkish law within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention by which the applicants could challenge the lawfulness of their pre-trial detention. Consequently, the Court considered that the violations found in the applicant’s case had originated in a systemic problem arising out of the malfunctioning of the Turkish criminal-justice system and the state of the Turkish legislation. The respondent State was therefore invited to adopt general measures at the national level with a view to ensuring the effective protection of the right to liberty and security under Articles 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Article 41 – EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes