CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 juin 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 } .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 } .s172EF8F1 { width:208.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 47180/12 Tekin TANGÜN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27   June 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Ledi Bianku, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 May 2012, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Tekin Tangün, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1969 and is detained in Tekirdağ prison. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Güreşçi, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     On 10 April 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation, illegal possession of explosives on behalf of that organisation and possession of a fake identity card. 5.     On 24 April 2008 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed his indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court charging the applicant with the above ‑ mentioned offences. 6.     On 9 May 2013 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty two years and fourteen months’ imprisonment. The court also ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention. COMPLAINT 7.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention on remand. THE LAW 8.     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 applied to the Constitutional Court. 9.     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 Uzun v.   Turkey , (dec.), no. 10755/13, §§ 68-71, 30 April 2013). 10.     The Court further notes that the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis had begun on 23 September 2012 and that 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. 11.     In the present case, the applicant’s detention started on 10   April 2008 and ended on 9 May 2013, when he was convicted. Accordingly, the applicant’s detention, including the period before 23 September 2012, fell 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). 12.     As a result, taking into account the Government’s preliminary objection, the Court concludes that the application 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 application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 20 July 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Ledi Bianku Deputy Registrar   President