A Comparative Analysis of Pre-Trial Procedure in Europe: The Search for an Ideal Model

EnglishTürkçe

CHAPTER


DOI :10.26650/B/SS26.2020.014.10   IUP :10.26650/B/SS26.2020.014.10    Full Text (PDF)

Pre-trial Procedure in Turkey: Post-salduz

Rahime Erbaş

The right to have an early access to legal assistance has a distinguishing feature among various jurisdictions as it receives varying responses depending on whether the system is predominantly inquisitorial or adversarial. At the same time, this feature renders the suspect’s right to access to legal assistance in the pre-trial phase highly challenging. In this landmark case, Salduz v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR), brought that problem up to surface and hit the different jurisdictions throughout Europe. Doubtless, the Salduz judgment does not answer all questions regarding defence lawyer in the pre-trial stage, but it stands as a cornerstone on the matter. Yet, this judgment is described as a cause of earthquake. Because it is the Turkish law that lays on its main line carrying that quake, the study aims to sketch Turkey’s pathway to access to legal assistance particularly for the pre-trial after the Salduz. Restrictions on this right due to crimes against the State, inter alia, terror crimes, today still remains as a heated debate in Turkey, considering the very recent judgment of the Turkish Court of Constitution. To that end, the study begins with providing insights into facts and proceedings before domestic authorities as well as the assessments of the ECtHR in Salduz. Then, the study outlines the deficiencies in Turkish criminal procedure law that failed to meet fair trial standards and were brought to the case before the ECtHR. As such, the legal background in Turkish law that led the case to the ECtHR will be displayed. And finally, the study analyses whether the Salduz- generated reforms in Turkey came into existence or not.


Keywords: Defence lawyer, legal assistance, the suspect, pre-trial, the accused, Turkish criminal law

References

  • Bozdağ A, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Müdafi (Adalet 2014). google scholar
  • Brants C, ‘The Reluctant Dutch Response to Salduz’ (2011) 15 Edinburgh L Rev 298. google scholar
  • Centel N, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Müdafi (Kazancı 1984). google scholar
  • Centel N and Zafer H, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (15th edn, Beta 2018). google scholar
  • Çeliksoy E, ‘Ibrahim and Others v. UK: Watering down the Salduz Principles?’ (2018) 9 (2) New Journal of European Criminal Law 229. google scholar
  • Çeliksoy E, ‘Overruling ‘the Salduz Doctrine’ in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR’s further retreat from the Salduz principles on the right to access to lawyer’ (2019) 10 (4) New Journal of European Criminal Law 342. google scholar
  • De Hert P, ‘European Human Rights Law and the Regulation of European Criminal Law. Lessons Learned from the Salduz Saga’ (2010) 1 (3) New Journal of European Criminal Law 289. google scholar
  • Demiral Bakırman B, ‘Unlawfully Obtained Evidences in Turkish Criminal Procedure Law’ (2015) 3 (1) Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 239. google scholar
  • Demirbaş T, ‘Soruşturma Evresinde Şüphelinin İfadesinin Alınması ve Müdafilik’ (2007) 2 (4) Ceza Hukuku Dergisi 79. google scholar
  • Dülger MV, ‘Ceza Muhakemesinde Müdafinin Konumu ve Uygulamada Karşılaşılan Sorunlar’ (2012) 4 Ankara Barosu Dergisi 39. google scholar
  • Elveriş İ, Kutucu S and Yaşar İ, ‘Türkiye’de Adli Yardım Sisteminin Değerlendirilmesi’, in İdil Elveriş (eds), Legal Aid in Turkey- Policy Issues and A Comparative Perspective (Bilgi University 2005) 39. google scholar
  • Erbaş R, ‘Organized Crime-Related Legislation in the Turkish Criminal Law’ (2015) 3 (1) Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 275. google scholar
  • Erem F, ‘İnsan Hakları ve Ceza Muhakemeleri Usulü Kanunu Değişikliği’ (1993) 19 (1-2) Yargıtay Dergisi 35. google scholar
  • Erem F, ‘Savunmasız Ölüm Cezası’ (1978) 6 Ankara Barosu Dergisi 925. google scholar
  • Giannoulopoulos D, ‘Strasbourg Jurisprudence, Law Reform and Comparative Law: A Tale of the Right to Custodial Legal Assistance in Five Countries’ (2016) 16 Human Rights Law Review 103. google scholar
  • Hodgson J, ‘Constructing the Pre-Trial Role of the Defence in French Criminal Procedure: An Adversarial Outsider in an Inquisitorial Process’ (2002) 6 (1) International Journal of Evidence & Proof 1. google scholar
  • Jackson J and Summers S, ‘Confrontation with Strasbourg: UK and Swiss Approaches to Criminal Evidence’ (2013) 60 (2) Criminal Law Review 114. google scholar
  • Jahic G and Elveriş İ, ‘Müdafiliğe İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme: Değişen Kanunlar, Değişmeyen Sonuç’(2010), 23 (90) Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi 165. google scholar
  • Karakehya H and Arabacı M, ‘Ceza Muhakemesinde Müdafiin Önemi, Hukuki Statüsü ve Müdafiiliğe İlişkin Problemler’ (2015), 6 (22) TAAD 59. google scholar
  • Karakehya H, ‘Ceza Muhakemesinde Zorunlu Müdafilik’ in Mehmet Murat İnceoğlu (eds), Uğur Alacakaptan’a Armağan I (Bilgi University, 2008) 417. google scholar
  • Kartal M, ‘Müdafiin Hukuki Niteliği Bağlamında Şüphelinin/ Sanığın ve Müdafiin İrade Çatışması Meselesi’ (2020) 15 (42) Ceza Hukuku Dergisi 207. google scholar
  • Kibar R, Türk Hukukunda Sanık Hakları (Yetkin Yayınları 1997). google scholar
  • Kocaoğlu SS, Müdafi (3rd edn, Seçkin 2017). google scholar
  • Kunter N, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (9th edn, Yaylacık Matbaası 1989). google scholar
  • Lipstein K, ‘The Reception of Western Law in Turkey’ (1956) 5 (6) Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 11 <https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/6610> accessed 14 March 2020. google scholar
  • Mahmutoğlu FS and Dursun S, Türk Hukuku’nda Müdafiin Yasaklılık Halleri (Seçkin 2004). google scholar
  • Mahmutoğlu FS, ‘Das neue türkische Strafgesetzbuch, Allgemeiner Teil’ <http://fsmahmutoglu.av.tr/ pdf/68b9dc04fd8938522613410d91910d794e7497267818090242.pdf> accessed 20 April 2020. google scholar
  • Ogorodova A and Spronken T, ‘Legal Advice in Police Custody: From Europe to a Local Police Station’ (2014) (7) 4 Erasmus Law Review 191. google scholar
  • Ölçer FP, ‘Illegally Obtained Evidence in European Treaty of Human Rights (ETHR) Law’ (2008) 40 (57) Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 65. google scholar
  • Önok RM, ‘Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Bağlamında Olağanüstü Hal Uygulamaları’ in KHK’ler Türkiyesinde Savunma Hakkı Paneli (Türkiye Barolar Birliği 2016) 109 < http://tbbyayinlari.barobirlik. org.tr/TBBBooks/592.pdf> accessed 3 July 2020). google scholar
  • Öztürk B, Tezcan D, Erdem MR, Gezer ÖS, Saygılar Kırıt YF, Akcan EA, Özaydın Ö, Erden Tütüncü E, Altınok Villemin D and Tok MC, Nazari ve Uygulamalı Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (13 edn, Seçkin 2019). google scholar
  • Özden YG, ‘İnsan Hakları Hukuk Devleti ve Savunma’ (1984) (3) Ankara Barosu Dergisi 371. google scholar
  • Sokullu- Akıncı F, ‘Recent Attempts to Guarantee Human Rights in the Turkish Penal Procedure Law’ (1998) 32 (48) Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 253. google scholar
  • Soo A, ‘Divergence of European Union and Strasbourg Standards on Defence Rights in Criminal Proceedings? Ibrahim and the others v. the UK (13th of September 2016)’ (2017) 25 (4) European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 327. google scholar
  • Soyaslan G, ‘Limiting Procedural Rights During Police Interrogation in Terror Crimes: A Comparative Analysis of European and U.S. Laws and Suggestions to Turkish Law’ (2020) 8 (1) Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 143, 149-150. google scholar
  • Sözüer A and Sevdiren Ö, ‘Turkey: The Move to Categorical Exclusion of Illegally Gathered Evidence’, in Stephan Thaman (eds), Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law (Springer 2013) 287. google scholar
  • Sözüer A, ‘Reform of the Turkish Criminal Law’ in Adem Sözüer (eds), Congress on the Criminal Law Reforms in the World and in Turkey (On İki Levha 2013) 107. google scholar
  • Sözüer A and Dursun S, ‘TCK, CMK ve Kabahatler Kanunu’ndaki Son Değişiklikler Ne Getiriyor?’(2006) 9 HPD Akademi 203. google scholar
  • Şahin C and Göktürk N, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku I (10th edn, Seçkin, Ankara 2019). google scholar
  • Tezcan D, ‘Cezai Konularda Türk- İtalyan İlişkileri’ (1994) 49 (1) Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 365. google scholar
  • Top S, ‘Müdafi Yardımından Yararlanma Hakkına Uygulanan Sınırlamalar (2018) 137 TBB Dergisi 217. google scholar
  • Tosun Ö, Türk Suç Muhakemesi Hukuku Dersleri Cilt I (4th edn, İstanbul University 1984). google scholar
  • Ünver Y and Hakeri H, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku I (15th edn, Seçkin 2019). google scholar
  • Yenisey F, Uygulanan ve Olması Gereken Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku- Hazırlık Soruşturması ve Polis (3th edn, Beta 1993). google scholar
  • Yıldız AK, ‘Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Yakalama ve Gözaltına Alma’ (2006) 14 (1) Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 131. google scholar
  • Yurtcan E, Ceza Yargılaması Hukuku (16th edn, Seçkin 2019). google scholar
  • Zafer H, ‘Savunma Hakkı ve Sınırları’ (2013) (2) Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi (Prof. Dr. Nur Centel’e Armağan) 507. google scholar
  • Internet Resources google scholar
  • Council of Europe, ‘Decree with Force of Law’ <https://rm.coe.int/168069661d > accessed 23 April 2020). google scholar
  • Council of Europe, ‘Treaty list for a specific State: Turkey’ <https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/ conventions/treaty/country/TUR> accessed 11 March 2020. google scholar
  • Council of Europe, ‘Statement: Measures taken under the state of emergency’ in Turkey’, Strasbourg 26 July 2016 <https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/measures-taken-under-the-state-of-emergency-inturkey> accessed 23 April 2020. google scholar
  • European Commission, ‘Enlargement’ <https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/candidates.htm> accessed 17 September 2019. google scholar
  • ECtHR, ‘Turkey’ <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Turkey_ENG.pdf> accessed 20 April 2020. google scholar
  • ECtHR, ‘Overview 1959-2011’ (February 2012) 7, <http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_2011_ENG. pdf> accessed 20 April 2020. google scholar
  • ECtHR, ‘Violations by Article and by State’ <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_2019_ENG. pdf> accessed 20 April 2020) google scholar
  • Official Gazette [Resmî Gazete], No 1172, 20 April 1929 < https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/1172.pdf > accessed 21 April 2020. google scholar
  • Official Gazette [Resmî Gazete], No 13168, 7 April 1969 <https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/13168.pdf> accessed 21 April 2020. google scholar
  • Official Gazette [Resmî Gazete], No 21422, 1 December 1992 <https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/21422. pdf > accessed 21 April 2020. google scholar
  • Official Gazette [Resmî Gazete], No 24556, 17 October 2001 <https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/ eskiler/2001/10/20011017m1.htm> accessed 21 April 2020. google scholar
  • Official Gazette [Resmî Gazete], No 25469, 22 May 2004 <https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/ eskiler/2004/05/20040522.htm> accessed 20 April 2020. google scholar
  • Official Gazette [Resmî Gazete], No 25673, 17 December 2004 <https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/ eskiler/2004/12/20041217.htm#1> accessed 24 April 2020. google scholar
  • Official Gazette [Resmî Gazete], No 30354, 8 March 2018 < https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/ eskiler/2018/03/20180308M1-3.htm > accessed 23 April 2020. google scholar
  • Official Gazette [Resmî Gazete], No 30963, 29 November 2019 <https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/ eskiler/2019/11/20191129-7.pdf> accessed 23 April 2020. google scholar
  • Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs Directorate for EU Affairs, Political Reforms in Turkey (2007) 5 < https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/pub/prt.pdf> accessed 22 April 2020. google scholar
  • The Grand National Assembly of Turkey (Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi), ‘The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey’<https://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf> accessed 24 April 2020). google scholar
  • Cases google scholar
  • A and Others v. UK, App no 3455/05 (ECtHR, 19 February 2009). google scholar
  • Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, App no 32446/96 (ECtHR, 2 November 2004); google scholar
  • Aksoy v. Turkey, App no 21987/93 (ECtHR, 18 December 1996); google scholar
  • Dayanan v. Turkey, App no 7377/03 (ECtHR, 13 October 2009). google scholar
  • Ekinci v. Turkey, App no 25148/07 (ECtHR, 12 May 2020). google scholar
  • İlhan v. Turkey, App no 22277/93 (ECtHR, 27 June 2000); google scholar
  • Kurt v. Turkey, App no 15/1997/799/1002(ECtHR, 25 May 1998); google scholar
  • Sadık Önder v. Turkey, App no 28520/95 (ECtHR, 8 January 2004); google scholar
  • Salduz v. Turkey, App no 36391/02 (ECtHR, GC, 27 November 2008). google scholar
  • Tekin v. Turkey, App no 52/1997/836/1042 (ECtHR, 9 June 1998); google scholar
  • Tuncer and Durmuş v. Turkey, App no 30494/96 (ECtHR, 2 February 2005). google scholar
  • Tunç v. Turkey, App no 32432/96 (ECtHR, 27 March 2007). google scholar
  • Yaman and Others v. Turkey, App no 46851/07 (ECtHR, 15 May 2018). google scholar
  • Askeri Yargıtay, Date: 22. 08.1969, E. 380/K.436. google scholar
  • Anayasa Mahkemesi, E: 2018/73, K: 2019/65, Date: 24/7/2019. google scholar
  • Yargıtay 1. CD, Date:10. 02.1959, 258/955. google scholar
  • Yargıtay, 1.CD, Date: 07.06.1977, 1044/1962. google scholar
  • Yargıtay 3. CD, Date: 14.01. 1957, 269/273. google scholar
  • Yargıtay 16. CD, Date: 29.11.2017, E.2017/2257, K. 2017/5509. google scholar
  • Yargıtay 16. CD, Date: 15.02.2018, E. 2017/3515, K. 2018/475. google scholar
  • Yargıtay 16. CD, Date: 13.03.2018, E. 2017/3788, K. 2018/685. google scholar


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.