SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 4667/03
by İsmail DUYGULU
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
	Mrs	 , President,
	Mr	,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mrs	 	Mr	  judges,
and Mrs S. , Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 September 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr İsmail Duygulu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Antalya. He is represented before the Court by Mrs Serpil Kaplan, a lawyer practising in Antalya.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On various dates the applicant was prosecuted and tried for a number of offences. He was subsequently acquitted of all the charges. Nevertheless, the police continued to keep the details of the offences in a record, entitled “records of offences” (Suç Sicili). The applicant’s fingerprints and photograph were also included in that record. A number of requests made by the applicant to the Ministry of the Interior to have the police records erased were all rejected.
On 24 November 1993 the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of the Interior and asked for his police records to be erased.
On 14 May 1997 the Antalya Administrative Court ordered the erasure of the police records, with the exception of an entry in respect of a robbery for which the applicant had been tried and acquitted in 1982. The Administrative Court considered that the offence of robbery was an offence against property and, under section 5 of the Police (Duties and Powers) Act, the police were empowered to keep records relating to persons accused or convicted of offences against property.
An appeal by the applicant was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court on 8 November 2000. A request for a rectification of the decision of the Antalya Administrative Court was rejected on 11 June 2002.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 1 of the Convention, the applicant argued that the respondent Government had failed in their obligation to respect his human rights.
Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complained that the proceedings brought by him against the Ministry of the Interior had continued for a period of almost nine years and that they had not, therefore, been concluded within a reasonable time.
Under Article 7 of the Convention he maintained that his de facto punishment had not been provided for by law.
Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant maintained that all his efforts to have the police records erased had been futile.
Without going into detail, the applicant also complained that there had been a violation of Articles 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention.
Finally, the applicant argued that the respondent Government had violated his right guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention because the authorities had failed to erase the police records and they had thus disregarded his right to the presumption of innocence.
THE LAW
1.	The applicant complained that the proceedings brought by him before the Antalya Administrative Court had not been completed within a reasonable time, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.
2.	Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 7, the applicant complained that his right to the presumption of innocence was violated.

As for the applicant’s remaining complaints, the Court finds that, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

	S.  F. 	Registrar	President