In individual application decisions, the concept of “reasonable time” is used in relation to two different ECHR provisions. One of these provisions is paragraph 1 of Article 6, which regulates the right to a fair trial, while the other is paragraph 3 of Article 5, which regulates the right to freedom and security. Since the provisions of the two Contracts are different in terms of the rights they regulate, the concepts of reasonable time in these provisions are also different from each other.
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL ARTICLE 6/1.
“Everyone has the right to have their case heard in a fair and public manner and within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, which will decide on the merits of any disputes concerning civil rights and obligations or criminal charges against him. The decision is made publicly. However, when morality in a democratic society, in the interests of public order or national security, the interests of minors or the privacy of the parties to a case require confidentiality, or, in certain special cases where publicity may impair a fair trial, and to the extent considered unavoidable by the court, the courtroom may may be partially closed to the press and audience”
THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY ARTICLE
5/3. “3. Anyone arrested or detained pursuant to the conditions set forth in paragraph 1.c of this article must be brought promptly before a judge or other public official authorized by law to exercise judicial power, who shall have the right to trial within a reasonable time or to be released pending trial. has. Release may be conditional on a guarantee that will enable the person to be present at the hearing.
In our country, legal disputes in terms of both reasonable time in trial and reasonable time in detention are high. The time spent in detention sometimes exceeded the maximum penalty period that could be given due to problems in the process of issuing the indictment and bringing the accused before a judge. Prolonged criminal proceedings sometimes cause the defendants to stop appealing the conviction against them in order to be released. Although all parties to the trial can file an individual application based on Article 6 of the Convention, only a suspect can make an individual application based on Article 5.10 Accordingly, Article 6 provides for speeding up the proceedings and Article 5 for shortening the period of detention. One of the most important problems that can lead to the prolongation of criminal cases is the unnecessary postponement of hearings. FOR EXAMPLE, in the 1st paragraph of Article 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271; “The trial continues without interruption and the verdict is given. However, in compulsory cases, the hearing may be suspended so as to enable the case to be concluded within a reasonable time.” is called. Although this provision regulates the responsibility of the judicial authorities to render judgments without interrupting the hearing, in practice, the compulsory situations requiring a pause in the hearing in the second sentence occur without considering the reasonable time requirement, contrary to what is stated in the law. Another procedural right enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, which ensures the effective protection of rights and freedoms, is the right to apply to an effective remedy. According to the decision of the ECtHR in 2000 as a result of the lawsuit filed against Poland, states are obliged to establish an authority that can examine complaints about the length of the proceedings. In the absence of such a body, it can be considered as a violation of Article 13 of the Convention even if the reasonable time review is not carried out by the ECtHR. The provision regarding the right to an effective application regulated in Article 13 of the ECHR is as follows:
“Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a national authority, even if the violation was committed by persons acting for the performance of an official service.”
According to this provision, anyone who claims that a right or freedom regulated by the Convention has been violated has the right to apply to an effective remedy. With this article, individuals who claim that their rights and freedoms, which are regulated in the Convention, have been violated, have been granted the “right of application”. In the cases brought against Turkey, the ECtHR has decided that the respondent State has violated Article 6, paragraph 1, and Article 13 of the Convention. If there is no effective authority and procedure in the domestic law to redress the violations of rights of those who claim that they have not been tried within a reasonable time, the Court decides that there has been a violation of Article 13, along with the provision that the trial was not held within a reasonable time in paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS REASONABLE TIME CRITERIA
If the accusation occurred before the lawsuit was filed, the trial period will be deemed to have started from this moment. Before this trial, the competent authority of the person who is alleged to have committed a crime It is the moment of application of measures such as detention, arrest, search, which is the moment of notification by the accused or the moment when he is first affected by the accusation. In a decision against Germany, the ECtHR decided to violate the trial, which lasted for a total of nine years, within a reasonable time. The ECtHR considers the applications made to the Constitutional Court within the scope of the trial period. It is made taking into account the specific characteristics of each case. The factors considered by the European Court of Human Rights, such as the Constitutional Court, are the complexity of the case, the attitude of the national judicial authorities and whether there is a valid reason to speed up the proceedings, the issues inherent in the dispute that is the subject of the case, the large number of persons against whom the lawsuit is filed, the existence of international dimensions, the expert in the case. The need for experts, the fact that the case is related to other cases, and the intervention of third parties in the trial process. Whether the applicant, with his own attitude, caused the extension of this period is another matter. For example, in a case that lasted about eight years, the ECtHR concluded that a reasonable time had not been exceeded on the grounds of the complexity of the case. The state, which is emphasized in the case law of the ECtHR, has to show the necessary attention and care and act quickly in this area. In an X/France decision of the ECHR in 1992; The applicant, who is a hemophiliac, contracted HIV due to a blood transfusion and sued the French Ministry of Justice for compensation. The plaintiff, whose illness was at an advanced stage, died before the proceedings in the local courts could be completed. In its decision, the ECtHR ruled that the domestic judicial authorities had an obligation to expedite the proceedings, considering that the applicant had a short life. Accordingly, taking into account that the death of the applicant was approaching, speeding up the proceedings was accepted as the responsibility of the local courts. In such cases, even if the trial period lasted two years, it is considered as exceeding the reasonable time. In summary; The factors that cause the reasonable time limit in the proceedings to be exceeded are partly due to legislation, but largely to practice. All the problems that lead to the prolongation of the cases result in the judicial power moving away from its function of providing justice. It can be said that the approaches of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights are identical in terms of determining the process within the scope of reasonable time and evaluating whether it is reasonable or not.
“The worst of justice is the one that comes late. Even though the verdict is correct in the end, justice delayed is cruelty.” Orhan Gazi
