SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 68267/11 Bar ı ş ASLAN against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 March 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Nebojša Vučinić, President, Valeriu Griţco, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar

Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 September 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. 68267/11) 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 Barış Aslan (“the applicant”), on 5 September 2011.

2. The applicant, Mr Bar ı ş Aslan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1992 and is detained in Tekirdağ. He was represented before the Court by Ms Y. İmrek, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.

3. On 11 July 2013 the complaint concerning the length of applicant ’ s detention was communicated to the Government and remainder of the application declared inadmissible 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 5 October 2010 the applicant was taken into custody.

6. On 8 October 2010 the judge on duty at the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention having regard to the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence in issue and the strong suspicion indicating that the suspect had committed the offence.

7. On 12 November 2010 a bill of indictment was filed against the applicant, accusing him of membership of an armed terrorist organisation and disseminating propaganda for it, storage of hazardous materials and violating the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act (Law no. 2911) .

8. On 8 April 2011 the first hearing was held by the 10 th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court, which decided to maintain the applicant ’ s detention pending trial. The court relied on grounds which were similar to those contained in the initial order for the applicant ’ s detention on remand.

9. On 16 July 2013 the court held the tenth hearing in the case, during which it ordered the applicant ’ s release from detention on remand.

10. On 13 November 2013 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to seven years and six months ’ imprisonment.

11. According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the Court of Cassation.

COMPLAINT

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

THE LAW

13. 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.

14. The applicant disputed this observation.

15. 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).

16. 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 begun before the introduction of the right of individual application and had carried on after that date.

17. In the present case, the applicant ’ s detention started on 8 October 2010 and ended on 16 July 2013 when he was released from detention on remand. Accordingly, the applicant ’ s detention even in the period before 23 September 2012 came within the Constitutional Court ’ s temporal jurisdiction (see, Koçintar v. Turkey (dec.), no 77429/12, §§ 15-26, 39, 1 July 2014; Levent Bektaş v. Turkey , no. 70026/10 , §§ 40-42, 16 June 2015 ).

18. 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.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 7 April 2016 .

Abel Campos NebojÅ¡a Vučinić              Deputy Registrar President