CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 décembre 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 } .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 } .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 } .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. 55560/09 Zülküf YÜCE against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5   December 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Nebojša Vučinić, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 October 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Zülküf Yüce, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972. He is currently serving his prison sentence in the Osmaniye T-type prison. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     On 10 February 2000 the applicant was arrested and subsequently he was placed in detention on remand. 3.     On 3 July 2000 the Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment and the criminal proceedings against the applicant commenced before the Adana State Security Court. 4.     Under Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was therefore transferred to the Adana Assize Court. 5.     On 10 October 2007 the Adana Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged. 6.     On 30 April 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 10   October 2007. B.     Relevant domestic law 7.     A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Turgut   and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26   March 2013). COMPLAINTS 8.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive. 9.     The applicant alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had not been completed within a reasonable time. THE LAW A.     Article 5 § 3 of the Convention   10.     The applicant argued under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention lasted for an excessively long period of time. 11.     The Court observes that the applicant’s pre-trial detention ended on 10   October 2007 when he was convicted with the judgment of the Adana Assize Court. From that time on, the applicant was detained “after conviction by a competent court”, which falls within the scope of Article   5   §   1 (a) of the Convention. As the applicant did not lodge his application with the Court until 9 October 2009, this complaint must be declared inadmissible for non ‑ compliance with the six-month rule, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.   B.     Article 6 of the Convention   12.     The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 13.     The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-execution of judgments. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not made any application to the Compensation Commission: this ground had also been recognised by the Court in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others ((dec.), no.   4860/09, 26   March   2013). 14.     The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a domestic remedy has been established in Turkey following the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v.   Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). Subsequently, in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others , cited above, the Court declared a new 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 length of proceedings. 15.     The Court notes that in its judgment in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (cited above, § 77) it stressed that it could nevertheless examine, under its normal procedure, applications of this type which had already been communicated to the Government. 16.     However, taking account of the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the applicant’s failure to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the case of Turgut and Others . 17.     It therefore concludes that the complaint of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings 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 11 January 2018.   Hasan Bakırcı   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President