PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 3884/04) 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 Ejder Aslantürk (“the applicant”), on 3 September 2003.

The applicant was represented by Mr B. Mungan and Ms A. Aslantürk, two lawyers practising in Ankara? and Ms G. Doyduk, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 16 September 2008 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Ankara.

On 11 August 1994 the applicant, a building contractor, was charged by the Ardahan public prosecutor with forgery of official documents for his personal financial benefit to the detriment of the administrative authorities.

On 18 October 1994 the Ardahan Assize Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case (case no. 1994/47).

During the second hearing held on 29 November 1994, the Ardahan Assize Court decided to await the outcome of certain administrative proceedings against a civil engineer working at the Kars governor’s office.

On 21 May 1998 criminal proceedings brought against the aforementioned civil engineer were joined to the case against the applicant.

On 2 March 1999 the first-instance court was notified of the outcome of the administrative proceedings against the civil engineer.

On 13 February 2001 the Ardahan Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged.

On 15 November 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

On 9 January 2003 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation objected to the decision of the Court of Cassation, arguing, inter alia, that the first-instance court had failed to conduct a graphological examination of the allegedly forged documents.

On 1 April 2003 the Plenary Court of Cassation (Criminal Divisions) (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu) dismissed the Principal Public Prosecutor’s objection regarding the graphological examination, holding that such an examination was not justified by the facts of the case, and upheld the judgment of 13 February 2001 with one minor technical amendment (düzelterek onama).

On 23 June 2003 the decision of the Plenary Court of Cassation (Criminal Divisions) was deposited with the registry of the first-instance court.