Civan BOLTAN v Turkey - 32777/09 [2012] ECHR 654 (27 March 2012)

Civan BOLTAN v Turkey - 32777/09 [2012] ECHR 654 (27 March 2012)

The Court found the applicant's detention was not contrary to Article 5 § 1 as there was reasonable suspicion and the detention was in the context of criminal proceedings. Complaints regarding access to relatives were out of time, and complaints regarding fair trial, discrimination, and interpretation of criminal law were premature due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The right to education was not violated as the interruption was due to lawful detention. The Court adjourned examination of complaints regarding the length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings.

Citation
[2012] ECHR 654
Parties
Applicant: Civan Boltan; Respondent: Turkey
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
27 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility and Adjournment of Certain Complaints
Outcome
Partially admissible; remainder inadmissible
Legal Topics
Right to Liberty and Security, Right to a Fair Trial, Right to Education, Non Discrimination, Right to Respect for Private and Family Life
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Right to Liberty and Security Right to a Fair Trial Right to Education Non Discrimination Right to Respect for Private and Family Life

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Civan Boltan

Applicant

Turkey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility and Adjournment of Certain Complaints

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's detention was unlawful under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings was excessive under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied access to a lawyer and relatives

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the applicant's detention was not contrary to Article 5 § 1 as there was reasonable suspicion and the detention was in the context of criminal proceedings. Complaints regarding access to relatives were out of time, and complaints regarding fair trial, discrimination, and interpretation of criminal law were premature due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The right to education was not violated as the interruption was due to lawful detention. The Court adjourned examination of complaints regarding the length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings.

Court Disposition

Partially admissible; remainder inadmissible

Orders

  • Adjourned examination of complaints concerning the length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings
  • Declared the remainder of the application inadmissible