KILIC proti Turecku

THIRD SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 49164/99
by Ayşe KILIÇ
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5 September 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress, President,
Mr L. Caflisch,
Mr P. Kūris,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr J. Hedigan,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mrs H.S. Greve, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 May 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ayşe Kılıç, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Ankara. She is represented before the Court by Mr Ahmet Bozkurt Çağlar, a lawyer practising in Ankara.

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

On 12 July 1996 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of having participated in a series of illegal demonstrations.

On 23 July 1996 the applicant was interrogated by police officers. The applicant refused to answer the questions posed by police officers.

On 25 July 1996 the applicant was questioned by a public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court. The applicant denied the allegations against her.

On the same day the applicant was brought before a judge at the Ankara State Security Court along with other detainees. During her questioning the applicant denied the allegations against her. The judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.

On 12 August 1996 the Ankara State Security Court Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Ankara State Security Court accusing the applicant of membership of an armed organisation, namely the Turkish Revolutionary Communist Gathering (Türkiye İhtilalci Komünistler Birliği). The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.

On 10 March 1998 the Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting the members of an armed organisation under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and sentenced her to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.

The applicant appealed against the decision of the Ankara State Security Court.

On 28 December 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her trial was unfair on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench.

The applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention that she was subjected to discrimination because she was convicted and sentenced under the provisions of Law no. 3713. The applicant alleges that had she not been convicted under Law no. 3713 she would have received a less severe punishment.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her trial was unfair on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to give notice of them to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention that she was subjected to discrimination because she was convicted and sentenced under the provisions of Law no. 3713. The applicant alleges that had she not been convicted under Law no. 3713 she would have received a less severe punishment.

The Court recalls that Article 14 is not concerned with all differences of treatment but only with differences having as their basis or reason a personal characteristic by which persons or group of persons are distinguishable from each other (see the Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 23, p. 29, § 56).

In the instant case the Court observes that the alleged distinction is not made between different groups of people, but between different types of offences, according to the legislature’s view of their gravity (see Gerger v. Turkey judgment of 8 July 1999, GC, no. 24919/94, § 69). The Court does not find this difference in treatment arbitrary or lacking in objectivity.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that this part of the application must be rejected.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress
Registrar President