SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 61042/14 X against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 19 May 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Nebojša Vučinić , President, Paul Lemmens , Egidijus Kūris , judges,

and Abel Campos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 August 2014 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr X , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1995 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Muğla . He was represented before the Court by his mother . The Committee decided of its own motion to grant the applicant anonymity pursuant to Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court.

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3. In 2009, the applicant and his gir lfriend, who were both fourteen years old at the time, had sexual intercourse. Upon the complaint lodged by his girlfriend ’ s parents, criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant before the Muğla Assize Court.

4. On 17 June 2010 the Muğla Assize Court found the applicant guilty of child molestation and sentenced him to three years and four months ’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 103 of the Criminal Code.

5 . On 29 April 2014 this judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation. The applicant learned about this decision on 11 June 2014, when he was notified by the public prosecutor.

COMPLAINT

6. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that his conviction to three years and four months ’ imprisonment was severe and constitute d inhuman treatment as he was a minor at the time of the events.

THE LAW

7. The Court recalls that under Artic le 35 § 1 of the Convention it “ may only deal with the matter after all domest ic remedies have been exhausted” . The purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court. Accordingly, this rule requires applicants first to use the remedies provided by the national legal system, thus dispensing States from answering before the European Court for their acts. Yet, the rule is based on the assumption that the domestic system provides an effective remedy in respect of the alleged breach (see Aydemir and Others ( dec. ), nos. 9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05, and 9509/05, 9 November 2010; İçyer v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 18888/02, 12 January 2006; and Latak v. Poland ( dec. ), no . 52070/08, § 75, 12 October 2010).

9. It follows that the application mu st 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 11 June 2015 .

Abel Campos Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar President