CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 mars 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1B9C96E3 { width:14.2pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE238DD5 { width:36.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF7AE3672 { width:150.61pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 11773/12 Mesut KAR against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19   March 2013 as a Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President,   Danutė Jočienė,   Peer Lorenzen,   Dragoljub Popović,   Işıl Karakaş,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 December 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mesut Kar, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1990 and is detained in Mardin prison. On 27 April 2009 the applicant was arrested in Şırnak on suspicion of membership of the PKK, an illegal organisation. On 29 April 2009 Şırnak Magistrate’s Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention having regard to the character of the offences, the strong suspicion of the suspect’s having committed the offences in issue, the possibility of fleeing and destruction of evidence in the early stages of investigation, and the fact that the offences in question fell within the categories listed in Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By an indictment dated 20 November 2009, the applicant was charged with the offence of being a member of the PKK, disseminating propaganda for it, violating the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act (Law   no.   2911) and destroying property. On 19 February 2010 the first hearing was held before Diyarbakır Assize Court. Between 19 February 2010 and 17 February 2012 the court held eighteen more hearings in the case and ordered the applicant’s continued detention on remand having regard to the existence of facts indicating a strong suspicion of guilt and the fact that the offences in question fell within the categories listed in Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the documents in the case file, the proceedings brought against the applicant are currently pending before the Diyarbakır Assize Court and he is still detained on remand. COMPLAINTS Without relying on any Article of the Convention, the applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive. The applicant further complained that his right to defend himself in his mother tongue was also breached. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. It further considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. 2.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3(a) of the Convention that his right to defend himself in his mother tongue was breached. The Court observes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending. This part of the application is premature and must therefore be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see, for example, Koç v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 36686/07, 26 February 2008). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of his continued pre-trial detention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Stanley Naismith   Guido Raimondi   Registrar   President