PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 26808/08) 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 Hasan Çatal (“the applicant”), on 23 May 2008.

The applicant was represented by Mr A. Yılmaz and Mrs S. Nur Yılmaz, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 9 February 2010 the application was declared partly inadmissible and the complaints concerning the length of pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings and the lack of effective domestic remedies in those respects were communicated to the Government. Furthermore, by virtue of Article 29 § 1 of the Convention, the Court decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.

The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. Taking into account the issues raised in the application, the Court finds it appropriate to allocate the case to a Chamber.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Tokat.

On 27 March 1997 the applicant was arrested by police officers of the anti‑terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Forces on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation and involvement in a bank robbery.

On 1 April 1997 the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, who placed him in pre-trial detention.

On 30 April 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with attempting to overturn the constitutional system by force under Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.

Basing its decision on the evidence before it, on 19 December 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On 16 September 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on procedural grounds and returned the case to the first-instance court.

Following the abolition of the State Security Courts by Law no. 5190, the criminal proceedings were transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court (2003/291 E.).

During the proceedings, the Istanbul Assize Court held hearings at two- or three-month intervals at which the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued pre-trial detention was reviewed. At those hearings the applicant made his pleadings orally before the trial court and requested to be released pending trial. The Istanbul Assize Court rejected those requests several times in view of the reasonable grounds of suspicion established against the applicant, the nature of the criminal charges and the state of the evidence in the case file.

In between the hearings, the Istanbul Assize Court continued to scrutinise, by virtue of Article 108 of Law no. 5271, the necessity of applicant’s continued pre-trial detention every thirty days on the basis of the case file, without holding an oral hearing.

At a hearing on 6 March 2008, the applicant was again brought before the trial court, where he claimed that his continued detention was unlawful and consequently requested to be released pending trial. This request was rejected by the Istanbul Assize Court on the basis of the reasonable grounds of suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he was charged, and the state of the evidence in the case file.

Following the applicant’s objection against the above-mentioned decision, the 14th Division of the Istanbul Assize Court reviewed the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention on the basis of the case file. On 4 April 2008 the court dismissed the objection lodged by the applicant based on the public prosecutor’s written opinion, which had not been communicated to the applicant.

On 3 November 2009, having regard to the period he had spent in detention, the Istanbul Assize Court released the applicant on the condition that he did not leave the country.

According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are currently pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.