CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 mars 1996

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 March 1996 Mitap and Müftüoğlu v. Turkey - 15531/89 and 15530/89 Judgment 25.3.1996 Article 6 Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of detention pending trial and of criminal proceedings: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS (COMMISSION AND COURT NOT COMPETENT RATIONE TEMPORIS AND NON-EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES) The Court has jurisdiction only in respect of facts that have occurred since 22 January 1990, when Turkish declaration under Article   46 of the Convention was deposited. Only the complaint concerning excessive length of the criminal proceedings satisfied that condition - Court could only deal with that complaint as from 22 January 1990 - however, in doing so, it would take account of the state of the proceedings at time when declaration was deposited. The other complaints fell outside the Court's jurisdiction: detention pending trial had ended on 19 July 1989, when the Martial Law Court gave judgment - complaint relating to the court's lawfulness, independence and impartiality and the fairness of the proceedings concerned that judgment and the part of the proceedings which it had brought to a close - in that respect, date on which judgment had been delivered was decisive. Conclusion : Court lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis , except with regard to the complaint concerning length of the criminal proceedings (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: deposit of Turkish declaration. End: dismissal of appeal on points of law. Total: nearly six years. B.   Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings To be assessed in light of particular circumstances of case, regard being had to criteria laid down in Court's case-law. Proceedings before Court of Cassation had lasted more than six years - case was complex but the Court had not been informed of any circumstance capable of justifying such a lengthy period, especially as proceedings at first instance had lasted approximately eight years and six months. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: no causal connection between violation found and alleged damage. Non-pecuniary damage: compensation awarded. Conclusion : respondent State to pay each applicant a specified sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage (unanimously). B.   Costs Costs: assessed on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay both applicants jointly a specified sum in respect of costs (unanimously).   © 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