PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 4236/03) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Ramazan Balaban (“the applicant”), on 8 November 2002.

The applicant was represented by Mrs N. Bener, a lawyer practising in Bursa. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.

On 5 June 2007 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, the non-communication of the principal public prosecutor’s observations before the Court of Cassation, the lack of a public hearing in the determination of his compensation claim and the alleged damage he suffered as a result of the domestic court’s failure to order payment of interest to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Bursa.

A. The criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 17 October 1996 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of complicity in an armed robbery and homicide in Bursa.

On 27 October 1996 he was detained on remand.

On 4 November 1996 the Bursa public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Bursa Assize Court, charging the applicant and three others with the murder of M.T. and armed robbery.

On 21 November 1997 the Bursa Assize Court acquitted the applicant and two of his co-accused. The fourth accused, A.Ş., was convicted. The first-instance court ordered the applicant’s release from prison.

The Bursa public prosecutor, M.T.’s father, who had joined the proceedings before the Bursa Assize Court, and A.Ş. appealed.

On an unspecified date the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion (tebliğname) on the merits of the appeal. This opinion was not served on the applicant.

On 28 April 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 21 November 1997, holding that the first-instance court had failed to collect certain relevant evidence. The case was remitted to the Bursa Assize Court.

On 29 June 2001 the Bursa Assize Court once again acquitted the applicant and two of his co-accused after gathering the evidence mentioned in the Court of Cassation’s decision. In its judgment, it held that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant had committed the offences in question.

The Bursa public prosecutor, M.T.’s father and A.Ş. again appealed. On an unspecified date the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion (tebliğname) on the merits of the appeal. This opinion was not served on the applicant.

On 19 March 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 29 June 2001. This decision was recorded in the records held by the Registry of the Bursa Assize Court on 17 April 2002.

B. The compensation proceedings

On 6 August 2002 the applicant brought an action in the Bursa Assize Court for compensation under Law no. 466 for his detention between 17 October 1996 and 2 November 1997.

On 20 August 2002 the court held a hearing and appointed one of its members as judge rapporteur to investigate the case and draft a report. There is no indication that the applicant and/or his legal representative were duly notified of this hearing. The rapporteur held investigatory sittings between 30 September 2002 and 23 December 2002. There is no indication that the applicant and/or his legal representative were summoned to be heard by the rapporteur during this time.

On 24 December 2002 the Bursa Assize Court held a hearing and, relying on the expert report and the documents contained in the case file, awarded the applicant 195,680,000 (TRL) (approximately EUR 116) for pecuniary damage and TRL 3,000,000,000 (approximately EUR 1,791) for non-pecuniary damage. In determining the award of pecuniary damage, the court referred to the minimum wage at the time and the applicant’s loss of income during his incarceration. With respect to non-pecuniary damage, it took into account the applicant’s socio-economic position, the seriousness of the charges brought against him, the time he had spent in detention and the intensity of his emotional suffering. It further awarded the applicant an amount for costs and expenses incurred before the criminal court. However, it dismissed his request for interest running from the date of his release, holding that interest could not be awarded in cases brought under Law no. 466. There is no indication that the applicant and/or his legal representative were duly notified of this hearing.

On 31 March and 6 February 2003 the Treasury and the applicant appealed. The applicant complained, inter alia, about the absence of an oral hearing before the Bursa Assize Court and the refusal to fix an interest rate for the compensation awarded to him.

On 10 June 2003 the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion on the merits of the appeals. He advised that the judgment of the first-instance court should be quashed as it had failed, inter alia, to take statements from the applicant in person before awarding him compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 2 July 2003 this opinion was served on the applicant.

On 12 May 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Bursa Assize Court. In its decision the court also noted that there had been no need for an oral hearing in the case.

The Government stated that on 3 November 2004 the authorities paid the amount due.