PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 29913/96) 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 Aziz Binbir (“the applicant”), on 12 January 1996.

The applicant was represented by Mrs Semra Dural Esim, a lawyer practising in Muğla (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 complaint (applications nos. 28291/95, 29280/95, 26699/96, 26700/96, 29701/96, 29702/96, 29703/96, 29911/96, 29912/96, 31831/96, 31834/96, 31853/96, 31880/96, 31891/96, 31960/96, 32964/96, 32987/96, 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).

On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Third Section (Rule 52 § 1)

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. Arrest and detention of the applicant

On 15 March 1978 police officers from the İzmir Security Directorate arrested the applicant on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the THKP-C (Turkish People’s Liberation Party/Front).

On 22 March 1978 the İzmir Assize Court (ağır ceza mahkemesi) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.

B. Trial in the İstanbul Martial Law Court

On 4 March 1981 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the İstanbul Martial Law Court against the applicant and 127 other defendants. The Public Prosecutor accused the applicant, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the THKP/C, whose object was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. He further charged the applicant with having been involved in a number of crimes such as opening fire on security forces.

Following the commencement of the prosecution before the İstanbul Martial Law Court, the cases before the İzmir Assize Court and the İzmir Martial Law Court, as regards the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant with the bills of indictments of 21 April and 23 June 1978 and 5 January 1980, were joined to it.

On 10 February 1984 the İstanbul Martial Law Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.

In a judgment of 8 November 1984 the İstanbul Martial Law Court convicted the applicant, under Article 146 § 3 of the Criminal Code, of his involvement in the THKP/C and in some of the alleged crimes. However, the court did not indicate the applicant’s sentence in its judgment. The applicant appealed.

C. Proceedings on appeal

On 12 April 1988 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court on the ground that the first instance court failed to establish the applicant’s involvement in certain of the alleged crimes. It referred the case to the İstanbul Martial Law Court.

On 17 August 1990 the İstanbul Martial Court convicted the applicant under Article 146 § 3 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to seven years and six months’ imprisonment, permanently debarred him from employment in civil service and placed him under judicial guardianship. The applicant appealed.

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 4 January 1994 the case file was transmitted to it.

On 18 April 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the latter court, and decided, under Article 322 of the Criminal Code, that the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be discontinued since the prosecution was time‑barred.