CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC3D571B0 { width:197.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 43708/06 Tahir DEVRİM against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27   September 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Nebojša Vučinić, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 October 2006, Having regard to the Court’s decision on 6 July 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Tahir Devrim, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Ms   F.   Köstek, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     On 15 November 1985 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for membership of an illegal organisation. 3.     According to the latest information in the file, the proceedings were still pending before the Üsküdar Assize Court as of 21 July 2009. B.     Relevant domestic law 4.     On 9 January 2013 the Turkish National Assembly enacted Law No.   6384 on the resolution, by means of compensation, of applications lodged with the Court concerning length of judicial proceedings and non ‑ enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions. COMPLAINT 5.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national courts had not been concluded within a reasonable time. THE LAW 6.     The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. 7.     The Government noted that pursuant to Law No. 6384 a new Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-execution of judgments. They further noted that the competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 16 March 2014 to examine complaints relating to, among other things, the alleged loss of value of the amount of the expropriation compensation due to the effects of inflation and the length of the proceedings. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not made any application to the Compensation Commission. 8.     The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey following the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v.   Turkey (n o   24240/07, 20 March 2012). Subsequently, in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others ((dec.), n o   4860/09, 26 March 2013), the Court declared an application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy. In so doing, the Court considered in particular that this new remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the depreciation of awards in expropriation cases. 9.     The Court notes that in its decision in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (cited above, § 77), it stressed that it could also examine, under its normal procedure, applications of that type which had already been communicated to the Government. 10.     In view of the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the availability to the applicant of the new domestic remedy established by Law No. 6384, the Court reiterates its decision in the aforementioned case of Turgut and Others and concludes that the present application should also be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares inadmissible the application.   Done in English and notified in writing on 20 October 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President