SECOND SECTION

Application no. 49360/11 Vedat GÖKHAN against Turkey lodged on 5 May 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The app licant, Mr Vedat Gökhan , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Izmir. He is represented before the Court by Mr Ö . Ayebe and Ms D. Arslan , lawyers practising in Izmir .

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

On 15 September 2008 the applicant was arrested by police officers and taken into custody on suspicion of illegal drug trafficking.

On 18 September 2008 the investigating judge took the applicant ’ s statement and ordered his pre-trial detention.

The criminal proceedings commenced before the Izmir 1 st Assize Court, which decided to prolong the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention several times.

On 6 November 2008 the Izmir 1 st Assize Court, having found that the offence had been committed by an illegal organisation , decided that it lacked jurisdiction and sent the file to the Izmir 10 th Assize Court, specialised criminal court.

The Izmir 10 th Assize Court examined the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention ex officio on numerous occasions and decided to prolong it.

On 14 October 2010 the Izmir 10 th Assize Court decided that statutorily the Izmir 1 st Assize Court had jurisdiction for the trial and sent the file to the Court of Cassation for determination of the competent court. The court also extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention.

On 17 October 2010 the applicant ’ s representative objected to the decision on the extension of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention and requested his release.

On 10 December 2010 the Izmir 8 th Assize Court dismissed the applicant ’ s objection.

On 28 March 2011 the Court of Cassation decided that the Izmir 10 th Assize Court had jurisdiction and sent the file back to it.

On 29 April 2011 the Izmir 10 th Assize Court released the applicant pending trial.

The proceedings are still pending before the Izmir Assize Court.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his pre-trial detention was excessively lengthy.

He further argues under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the assize court review ed the lawfulness of his continued detention approximately two months after the date of submission of his objection. In this respect he complains that the lawfulness of his detention was not decided speedily.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. W as the length of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

2. On 17 October 2010 the applicant objected to the assize court ’ s decision on extension of his pre-trial detention. H is request was examined and dismissed by the court on 10 December 2010, approximately two months later . In this respect, d id the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?