PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 32987/96) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Hüsamettin Keskin (“the applicant”), on 25 June 1996.

The applicant was represented by Mr Haluk Türkmen, a lawyer practising in Ordu (Turkey). The Turkish Government did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court. Mr Rıza Türmen, the judge elected in respect of Turkey, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr Feyyaz Gölcüklü to sit as an ad hoc judge, in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1).

The President of the Chamber decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the present application should be joined to other applications against the same respondent State raising the same complaints (applications nos. 26480/95, 28291/95, 29280/95, 26699/96, 29700/96, 29701/96, 29702/96, 29703/96, 29911/96, 29912/96, 29913/96, 31831/96, 31834/96, 31853/96, 31880/96, 31891/96, 31960/96, 32964/96, 32900/96, 33362/96, 33369/96, 33645/96, 34591/96, 34687/96, 39428/96 and 43362/96) (Rule 43 § 2).

By a decision of 31 August 1999, having obtained the parties’ observations, the Court declared the application admissible.

The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. Arrest and detention of the applicant

On 3 November 1980 police officers from the Fatsa Security Directorate arrested the applicant on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way).

On 30 January 1981 the Erzincan Martial Law Court (sıkıyönetim mahkemesi) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.

B. Trial in the Ankara Martial Law Court

On 10 May 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Erzincan Martial Law Court against the applicant and 722 other defendants. The Public Prosecutor accused the applicant, inter alia, of membership of the Dev-Yol, whose object was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code.

In a judgment of 24 August 1988 the Martial Law Court convicted the applicant on account of his involvement in the Dev-Yol. It sentenced the applicant to fifteen years’ imprisonment under Article 146 § 3 of the Turkish Criminal Code, permanently debarred him from employment in the civil service. On the same day the court ordered the applicant’s release.

C. Proceedings on appeal

The applicant appealed to the Military Court of Cassation.

Following promulgation of the Law of 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Court of Cassation (yargıtay) acquired jurisdiction over the case and on 26 December 1994 the case file was transmitted to it.

On 4 July 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant’s conviction on the ground that he should have been convicted of the offence under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code. It referred the case to the Ankara Assize Court (ağır ceza mahkemesi).

On 24 June 1997 the Ankara Assize Court decided, under Article 102 of the Turkish Criminal Code, that the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be discontinued since the prosecution was time‑barred.