CASE OF SANCAKLI v. TURKEY
No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing)
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Istanbul. 6. On 2 October 2004 the Büyükçekmece Magistrates’ Court issued a search warrant allowing the gendarmerie to conduct searches of public places and suspected persons in a designated area. 7. Late at night on the same day, the gendarmerie carried out a search at the Sancak Hotel, which is owned by the applicant. The records drawn up afterwards noted that during the course of the search, a certain M.Ş. had approached the plain-clothes officers outside the hotel and told them that he had a girl inside. It was then established that M.Ş. trafficked women. He and a woman in the hotel were both taken to the gendarmerie headquarters. 8. The search records, which were prepared a few hours after the search and signed by the hotel’s manager, showed that five women of foreign nationalities had been staying at the hotel with some men and that they had all been taken to the gendarmerie headquarters. 9. On 3 October 2004 the gendarmerie questioned several men as suspects and five women as victims. They all confirmed that they had been staying at the hotel for prostitution purposes. Some of the women were asked whether they knew of any complicity between the traffickers and the management of Sancak Hotel, to which they responded in the negative. 10. On the same day the applicant was arrested and taken into the custody of the gendarmerie on suspicion of facilitating prostitution. 11. On 4 October 2004 the applicant gave statements to the gendarmerie. He denied having provided premises for prostitution. He argued that he did not allow procurers into his hotel and had never seen M.Ş. before. 12. On the same day, the gendarmerie also questioned the hotel’s manager, who stated that both he and the applicant were very strict about keeping procurers out of their hotel. 13. On 30 May 2005 the Büyükçekmece Public Prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant and three other persons. He accused them of failure to obey an order from an official authority under Article 526 § 1 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 765) in force at the time, on the ground that they had provided premises for prostitution in their hotels. 14. On 1 June 2005 the Misdemeanours Act (Law no. 5326) and the new Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271) entered into force. 15. On 10 June 2005 the Büyükçekmece Magistrates’ Court assessed the case without holding a hearing. Establishing that the accused had provided premises for prostitution in their hotels, it held that the applicant had failed to obey the orders of an official authority as charged and should be punished accordingly. It then sentenced him to an administrative fine of 100 Turkish liras (TRY) pursuant to Section 32 of the Misdemeanours Act (Law no. 5326). 16. The applicant objected to that decision, arguing that his defence rights had been restricted in that the court had sentenced him to the fine solely on the basis of the statements taken previously by the police, and without hearing him in person. He maintained that he accepted clients into his hotel in compliance with the relevant regulation and that he could not be expected to refuse to offer accommodation to foreign nationals or to question their motives for staying there. 17. On 3 February 2006 after examining the case on the basis of the case file, the Bakırköy Assize Court upheld the decision of the Magistrates’ Court. That decision was final. 18. On 24 May 2006 an official letter was sent to the applicant. It was indicated on the envelope that the applicant was invited to a hearing concerning his case, which would be held on 10 July 2006. The envelope did not show any confirmation that the letter had been served on him. 19. The applicant’s lawyer stated that he had received a copy of the final decision at the registry of the Büyükçekmece Magistrates’ Court on 11 July 2006. In support of his claim, he submitted a copy of the Assize Court’s decision, on which a lawyer working at his office had noted that he had been served with the copy in person on that date. That document was later stamped and certified as an authentic copy by the registry of the domestic court. 20. Following communication of the present application, on 21 December 2009 a public prosecutor prepared an assessment report, summarising the events in the case. He concluded that the final decision had been served on the applicant on 26 May 2006. 21. On 2 January 2014 both the applicant and the Government were asked under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court to provide the Court with a document indicating the notification date of the final decision by 16 January 2014 at the latest. The parties did not respond to that request. 22. On 3 November 2017 the Government were once again asked to provide documents regarding the commencement of the six-month timelimit, in particular the content of the envelope from the Büyükçekmece Magistrates’ Court dated 24 May 2006 and the document in support of the public prosecutor’s claim that the final decision had been served on the applicant on 26 May 2006. On 30 November 2017 the Government informed the Court that they could not find the requested documents.