EU & Human Rights

BALCI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - 3704/09 (Communicated Case)

[2012] ECHR 1193European Court of Human Rights2012

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All EU & Human Rights cases →

Get the AI brief for this case

Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

Application no. 3704/09 �etin BALCI and Others against Turkey lodged on 25 December 2008

The applicants, Mr �etin Balci , Mr Kasim Kidik and Mr Serhan Eskin , are Turkish nationals who were born in 1982 , 1981 and 1988 respectively. They are currently detained in Tekirdag F-type prison while criminal proceedings are pending. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr H. �alis�i , a lawyer practising in Istanbul .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

On 22 and 28 August 2007 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the PKK, an illegal organisation, and of throwing a Molotov cocktail at a public bus during a riot.

On 26 August 2007 the first two applicants , and on 1 September 2007 the third applican t, were taken before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, who subsequently ordered their pre-trial detention.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Full judgment transcript

BAILII · Verbatim mirror

1. Has the length of the applicants� pre-trial detention been in breach of the �reasonable time� requirement of Article 5 � 3 of the Convention?

2. Have the applicants had at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article 5 � 4 of the Convention?

3. Have the applicants had an enforceable right to compensation, pursuant to Article 5 � 5 of the Convention, for their detention in the alleged contravention of Article 5?

4. Has the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case been in breach of the �reasonable time� requirement of Article 6 � 1 of the Convention?

5. Have the applicants had at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint of undue length of criminal proceedings, as guaranteed under Article 13 of the Convention?