SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 19588/12 Emin ÃœRÃœN against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26 April 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Valeriu Griţco , President, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , Georges Ravarani , judges, a nd Milan Blaško , Acting D eputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 December 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:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 19588/12) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Emin Ürün (“the applicant”), on 8 December 2011.

2. The applicant, Mr Emin Ürün , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1984 and is currently detained in İ zmir . His application was lodged on 8 December 2011. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.

3. On 13 May 2013 the complaint concerning the length of applicant ’ s detention was communicated to the Government by the President of the Section.

THE FACTS

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

5. On 14 May 2009 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody in Şırnak . On 16 May 2009 he was placed in detention on remand upon the order of the Şırnak Magistrates ’ Court.

6. On 20 November 2009 a bill of indictment was filed with Diyarbakır Assize Court accusing the applicant of membership of a terrorist organisation and of a violation of Law no. 2911 on assembly and demonstrations.

7. On 19 February 2010 the first hearing was held before the Diyarbakır Assize Court. Afterwards, until 2 January 2013 the court held twenty-four hearings during which it decided to keep the applicant in detention.

8. On 2 January 2013 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted t he applicant sentencing him to ten years and six months ’ imprisonment.

9. According to the information in the case file, on an unspecified date the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court ’ s decision.

COMPLAINTS

10. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand. Furthermore, without giving any details, the applicant also invoked Articles 7, 9 and 10 of the Convention.

THE LAW

11. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand .

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. 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 Hasan Uzun v. Turkey , ( dec. ), no. 10755/13, §§ 68-71, 30 April 2013).

14. The Court further notes that the Constitutional Court ’ s jurisdiction ratione temporis had begun on 23 September 2012 and 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 commenced before the introduction of the right of individual application and had carried on after that date (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 ).

15. In the present case the applicant ’ s detention commenced on 16 May 2009 and ended on 2 January 2013 by his conviction by the trial court. Accordingly, the applicant ’ s detention, even in the period before 23 September 2012, came within the Constitutional Court ’ s temporal jurisdiction.

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

17. Finally, regarding the applicant ’ s complaints under Articles 7, 9 and 10 of the Convention, in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant ’ s submissions 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 must be declared inadmissible as manifestly i ll-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 19 May 2016 .

Milan Blaško Valeriu Griţco Acting Deputy Registrar President