SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 47749/11 Orkun ÇAKAR against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 10 December 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, András Sajó , Nebojša Vučinić , judges , and , Stanley Naismith Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 May 2011 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Orkun Çakar , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1976 and is currently detained in Edirne prison . He is represented before the Court by Mr B. Akbay , a lawyer practising in Hatay .

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

3 . On 31 July 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of committing crimes on its behalf .

4 . On 4 August 2002 the criminal court decided to detain the applicant on remand.

5 . On 29 November 2002 he was released pending trial. Throughout the period the applicant was tried under a false name.

6 . On 31 March 2003 he was arrested again .

7 . On 2 April 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered his pre-trial detention.

8 . In 2004, the state security courts were abolished by Law no. 5190 and the case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.

9 . On 26 September 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation, of two homicides, of one robbery, of two attempted robberies, of the unlawful deprivation of liberty of an individual and of the forgery of documents. The court, accordingly, sentenced him to 65 years and 10 months ’ imprisonment.

10 . In its judgment of 25 May 2010 the Court of Cassation quashed the first ‑ instance judgment with respect to the applicant ’ s membership of an illegal organisation, of the unlawful deprivation of liberty of an individual and of the forgery of documents, finding them time-barred. The Court of Cassation further quashed the judgment in relation to one of the homicides on the grounds of reclassification of the offence. The remainder of the judgment, total sentence of 38 years ’ imprisonment, was upheld and accordingly became final. Subsequently, the case was remitted to the first-instance court.

11 . On 28 October 2011 the Istanbul Assize Court abided by the Court of Cassation ’ s decision and sentenced the applicant to a further 16 years and 8 months ’ imprisonment.

12 . According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.

COMPLAINT S

13 . Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complain ed that his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him had been excessively lengthy .

14 . He further complained of the lack of impartiality and independence of the State Security Courts and of the Specialised Criminal Courts .

THE LAW

15 . The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand had been unreasonably long. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

16 . The Court reiterates that pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court may only deal with the matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. When the acts of an authority are not open to any effective remedy, the six-month period runs from the date on which the act took place.

17 . As for the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the first period of his detention (from 31 July 2002 to 29 November 2002), t he Court notes that the impugned detention ended on 29 November 2002 when the applicant was released pending trial.

18 . As regards the applicant ’ s seco nd period of detention (from 31 March 2003 to 26 September 2008), the Court observes that the applicant ’ s detention on remand continued until the final judgment of the Assize Court of 26 September 2008. Thereafter, e ven though the first-instance judgment was partly quashed by the Court of Cassation, the part regarding the total sentence of 38 years ’ imprisonment was upheld. Accordingly, the applicant ’ s detention on remand ended with the initial conviction of 26 September 2008. Following that date, the applicant was detained “after conviction by a competent court”. However, the application was lodged with the Court on 10 May 2011, which is more than six months from the end of the detention period complained of.

19 . It follows that this complaint was introduced out of time and must be rejected for non-compliance with the six-mo nth rule pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

20 . The applicant c omplained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

21 . The Court observes that a new domestic remedy was established in Turkey after the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). The Court recalls that in its decision in the case of Turgut and others v. Turkey (no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), it declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies as a new domestic remedy had been envisaged. In so doing, the Court in particular considered that this new remedy was, a priori , accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings.

22 . It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

23 . The applicant further complained of the lack of impartiality and independence of the State Security Courts and of the Specialised Criminal Courts. Having consider ed that t he applicant ’ s complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court holds that none of the complaints seem to disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and fre edoms set out in the Convention (see Şaman v. Turkey , no. 35292/05 , § 39 , 5 April 2011 ).

24. These complaints are therefore inadmi ssible for being manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Stanley Naismith Peer Lorenzen Registrar President