CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 janvier 2017

.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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .sD79BB263 { width:196.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 8087/12 Turan BİLEM against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24   January 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Ksenija Turković, President,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Georges Ravarani, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 December 2011, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 8087/12) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Turan Bilem (“the applicant”), on 28 December 2011. 2.     The applicant, Mr Turan Bilem, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1973 and lives in İzmir. He was represented before the Court by Mr   F.   Aydınkaya, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent. 3.     On 26 June 2013 the complaint concerning the length of the applicant’s detention was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible by the President of the Section. THE FACTS 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.     On 4 November 2007 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation and illegal possession of explosives. 6.     On 5 November 2007 the İzmir Assize Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 7.     On 29 November 2007 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, accusing the applicant with separatism and undermining the integrity of the State, illegal possession of explosives on behalf of the organisation, damage to property and attempted murder. 8.     On 25 December 2007 the İzmir public prosecutor also filed a bill of indictment with the İzmir Assize Court, charging the applicant with being the leader of a terrorist organisation. 9.     Subsequently, the cases were joined at the Istanbul Assize Court. 10.     On 13 November 2012 the 10 th Chamber of Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a further imprisonment for seventy five years and four months. The court also ordered the applicant’s continued detention. 11.     On 28 February 2014 the applicant applied to the Turkish Constitutional Court complaining about the length of his detention on remand. This application is still pending before the Constitutional Court. COMPLAINT 12.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention on remand. THE LAW 13.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand. 14.     The Government maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he was still in detention on remand on 23   September 2012 and should have exhausted the remedy before the Constitutional Court. 15.     The applicant contested this argument. 16.     Having examined the main aspects of the new remedy before the Turkish Constitutional Court, the Court found that the Turkish Parliament had entrusted that court with powers that enabled it to provide, in principle, direct and speedy redress for violations of the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention, in respect of all decisions that had become final after 23   September 2012, and declared it as a remedy to be used (see Hasan Uzun v.   Turkey , (dec.), no. 10755/13, §§ 68-71, 30 April 2013). 17.     The Court further notes that, the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis had begun on 23 September 2012 and it was clear from the judgments already delivered that it accepted an extension of its jurisdiction ratione temporis to situations involving a continuing violation which had begun before the introduction of the right of individual application and had carried on after that date. 18.     In the present case, the applicant’s detention started on 4   November 2011 and ended on 13 November 2012 when he was convicted. Accordingly, the applicant’s detention came within the Constitutional Court’s temporal jurisdiction (see Koçintar v. Turkey (dec.), no   77429/12, §§   15-26, 39, 1 July 2014; and Levent Bektaş v. Turkey , no.   70026/10, §§   40-42, 16   June 2015). In this respect the Court also notes that the applicant’s individual application is still pending before the Turkish Constitutional Court. 19.     As a result, taking into account the Government’s preliminary objection, the Court concludes that this complaint must be rejected under Article   35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 16 February 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Ksenija Turković Deputy Registrar   President