SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 26582/11 Halil KARATAÅž against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 June 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Ledi Bianku , President, Paul Lemmens, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 January 2011,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Halil KarataÅŸ , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Ankara.

2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. On 24 November 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of an illegal armed organisation .

5. On 28 November 2007 the judge at the Kocaeli Magistrates ’ Court ordered the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention.

6. On 28 July 2008 the Istanbul Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, charging the applicant with membership of an illegal armed organisation .

7. On 23 July 2013 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant and ordered the continuation of his detention.

8. According to the latest information in the case-file, the applicant was released on an unspecified date and the proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation.

COMPLAINT

9. Relying on Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, t he applicant complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand.

THE LAW

10. The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand. In this connection, he invoked Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention.

11. The Court observes at the outset that the applicant ’ s complaint should be examined under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

12. The Government maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he was still in detention on remand on 23 September 2012 and should have applied to the Constitutional Court.

13. The applicant contested that argument.

14. Having examined the main aspects of the new remedy before the Turkish Constitutional Court, the Court found that the Turkish Parliament had entrusted that court with powers that enabled it to provide, in principle, direct and speedy redress for violations of the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention, in respect of all decisions that had become final after 23 September 2012, and declared it as a remedy to be used (see Uzun v. Turkey , ( dec. ), no. 10755/13, §§ 68-71, 30 April 2013).

15. The Court further notes that the Constitutional Court ’ s jurisdiction ratione temporis had begun on 23 September 2012 and that it was clear from the judgments already delivered that it accepted an extension of its jurisdiction ratione temporis to situations involving a continuing violation which had begun before the introduction of the right of individual application and had carried on after that date.

16. In the present case, the applicant ’ s detention started on 24 November 2007 and ended on 23 July 2013, when he was convicted. Accordingly, the applicant ’ s detention, including the period before 23 September 2012, fell within the Constitutional Court ’ s temporal jurisdiction (see Koçintar v. Turkey ( dec. ), no 77429/12, §§ 15-26, 39, 1 July 2014, and Levent Bektaş v. Turkey , no. 70026/10 , §§ 40-42, 16 June 2015 ).

17. As a result, taking into account the Government ’ s preliminary objection, the Court concludes that the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 20 July 2017 .

Hasan Bakırcı Ledi Bianku              Deputy Registrar President