[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> BEKTAS v. TURKEY - 38683/11 - HECOM [2013] ECHR 5 (14 January 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/5.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 5

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

 

 

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 38683/11
Fatih Hür BEKTAŞ
against Turkey
lodged on 25 March 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

The applicant, Mr Fatih Hür Bektaş, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Burdur. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Demir, a lawyer practising in Ankara.

A.  The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant is a corporal in the Turkish Land Forces.

On 17 December 2010 he had a quarrel with his superintendent. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant before the Hakkari Military Disciplinary Court, on a charge of insulting his superior.

On 26 January 2011 the Hakkari Military Disciplinary Court, which was composed of a major (binbaşı), a senior sergeant major (kıdemli başçavuş) and a private (er) found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to “room arrest” for fifteen days.

On the same day, the applicant started serving his sentence.

On 27 January 2011 the applicant appealed.

On 19 March 2011 the Van Supreme Disciplinary Court attached to the General Command of the Gendarmerie upheld the decision dated 26 January 2011.

B.  Relevant domestic law

A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in Veyisoğlu v. Turkey, no. 27341/02, §§ 12-13, 26 June 2007.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal.

The applicant submits that the disciplinary penalty which was imposed against him by the disciplinary courts contravened Article 5 § 1.

 

 

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1:  Was the military disciplinary court which dealt with the applicant’s case independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

 

2.  Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant’s sentence of fifteen days’ room arrest imposed by the military disciplinary court fall within paragraph (a) of this provision?