CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 octobre 2013

.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 } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDAF6EE49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB55E796 { width:26.35pt; display:inline-block } .sABCB874F { width:193.94pt; display:inline-block } .sB622B88D { width:38.36pt; display:inline-block } .sD5CCF864 { width:129.92pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 48448/11 Ömer YILDIZ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1   October 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and, Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 May 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ömer Yıldız, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 26 March 2008 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody within the context of an investigation concerning illicit drug trafficking. On 27 March 2008 the applicant was detained on remand by the Büyükçekmece Magistrates’ Court (in criminal matters). On 20 April 2008 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court and charged the applicant with illegal drug (heroin) trafficking. On 15 June 2010 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to eight years and nine months’ imprisonment and further imposed a judicial fine of 1,500 Turkish liras. On 28 May 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Istanbul Assize Court. COMPLAINTS Relying on Article 5 §§ 1(a), 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the length of his detention on remand had been excessive. He further contended under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him had been in breach of “reasonable time” requirement. THE LAW 1.     The applicant alleged under Article 5 §§ 1 (a), 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand had been unreasonably long. The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint should be examined under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The applicant’s conviction became final on 28 May 2012. Consequently, from that date onwards, the applicant had been entitled to seek compensation under Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but he had failed to do so. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Şefik Demir v. Turkey (dec.), no 51770/07, 16 October 2012). 2.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. 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. It follows 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 application inadmissible.   Seçkin Erel   Peer Lorenzen   Acting Deputy Registrar   President