CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 janvier 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s8DF6C4 { font-family:Arial; color:#333333 } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s20DA5F6 { width:12pt; display:inline-block } .sFBA785BD { width:170.26pt; display:inline-block } .s2AEACEE1 { width:40.02pt; display:inline-block } .s73F569FB { width:128.26pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 13350/09 Veysi KARAATAY against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28   January 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Dragoljub Popović, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Helen Keller, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 February 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Veysi Karaatay, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr   M.   Erbil, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 10 December 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). He was released on 13 December 2000. On 7 February 2001 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security filed an indictment with that court. Subsequently during the hearings, no military judge participated in the applicant’s trial. In 2004, following a constitutional amendment, State Security Courts were abolished and the applicant’s case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. On 2 November 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court sentenced him to one year and eight months’ imprisonment. The case is still pending before the Court of Cassation . B.     Relevant domestic law A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Müdür Turgut and Others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013 ). COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national court were not concluded within a reasonable time. The applicant also maintains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the State Security Court and Assize Court, which took over the case following the abolition of the former, lacked independence and impartiality . The applicant alleges violation of Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. The applicant complains under Article 17 of the Convention that his rights were abused by the contracting party. The applicant submits that the respondent State is seeking to restrict the exercise of his rights and freedoms, beyond the extent permitted by Article   18 of the Convention. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...” The Court observes that a new domestic remedy has been 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. The Court further recalls that in its judgment in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (cited above, § 77) it stressed that it could pursue the examination of applications of this type which were already communicated to the Government. The Government requested the Court to declare this application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, considering Law   no.   6384 which provides for a remedy capable of redressing the Convention grievances of persons who complain about the length of proceedings. The applicant contested the Government’s argument. In the light of the case of Müdür Turgut and Others, cited above, there are no exceptional circumstances capable of exempting the present applicant from the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. Accordingly, the applicant should avail himself of the new remedy offered by Law   no.   6384. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   13 OF THE CONVENTION The applicant also complains that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. He relies in this regard on Article   13 of the Convention, which provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” The Court has also held that the Compensation Commission established by Law no. 6384 provides applicants with a remedy within the meaning of Article   13 of the Convention to complain about the length of proceedings for the purposes of Article   6 §   1 where their applications were pending before the Court, but had not been communicated to the respondent Government by 23   September 2012 ( Müdür Turgut and Others, cited above, §   59). The present application was communicated after that date. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION The Court notes that, following the amendments made by Law   no.   4390 on 22 June 1999, the military judge on the bench of the State Security Courts was replaced by a civilian judge. Thus, no military judge participated in the applicant’s trial. Furthermore, the Court notes that, although the applicant complained generally that the State Security Courts were not independent and impartial, he did not substantiate this claim. The Court therefore concludes that the applicant cannot be regarded as having been deprived of a fair hearing on account of the composition of the court (see Sever and Aslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 33675/02, 12 April 2007; and Şaman v.   Turkey, no. 35292/05, § 39, 5 April 2011). As regards the other complaints, having carefully examined the applicant’s complaints in the light of all the materials in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Stephen Phillips   Dragoljub Popović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President