Logo law and pluralism
Logo Università Bicocca

Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, No. 32446/96, ECtHR (Second Section), 2 November 2004


Investigation of terrorist offences must be conducted in accordance with the guarantees enshrined in article 5 ECHR. Derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights in time of emergency. Territorial scope of a derogation in time of emergency. 

Normative references

Art. 15 ECHR
Art. 5 ECHR


1. The detention in police custody of the applicant suspected of having committed a terrorist offence for nine days without being brought promptly before a judge and without having the lawfulness of his detention decided by a judge breaches Article 5, paras. 3 and 4 ECHR. Moreover, the Court found a violation of Article 5, para. 5 ECHR, since the applicant had no right to compensation for illegal detention under domestic laws.

2. The extension of the effects of a derogation in time of emergency to territories not explicitly named in the notice of derogation runs counter to the object and purpose of Article 15 ECHR. Derogating measures apply only to the region where a state of emergency has been proclaimed.
(In the present case, the applicant, arrested and detained on suspicion of terrorism offences by the Turkish authorities in the city of Adana, complained of breaches of Art. 5 ECHR. The Government maintained that Turkey had not violated the Convention, as it had exercised the right of derogation under Article 15 ECHR. The Court noted that the city of Adana was not included among the regions in which the state of emergency was proclaimed. Consequently, it stated that the derogation in question was inapplicable ratione loci to the facts of the case).