SECOND SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 52109\/11
\n\u00d6mer U\u00c7AR
\nagainst Turkey<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20\u00a0November\u00a02018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Julia Laffranque, President,
\nValeriu Gri\u0163co,
\nSt\u00e9phanieMourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, judges,
\nand Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 August 2011,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the decision of 19 June 2013,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr\u00d6merU\u00e7ar, is a Turkish national, who was born in\u00a01962 and is detained in \u0130stanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr\u00a0H.A. Atabay, a lawyer practising in \u0130stanbul.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 September 2009 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 September 2009 a judge on duty at the \u0130stanbul Assize Court ordered the applicant\u2019s detention on remand.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 May 2010 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the \u0130stanbul Assize Court charging the applicant with membership of a terrorist organisation.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 January 2012 the \u0130stanbul Assize Court ordered the applicant\u2019s release pending trial.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0According to the latest information in the case file, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending as of February 2013.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law and practice<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in A.\u015e v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 58271\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 34-35, 13 September 2016), and \u015eefikDemir v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 51770\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 29-33, 16 October 2012).<\/p>\n COMPLAINT<\/strong><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention on remand.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The Government asked the Court to reject this complaint for non\u2011exhaustion of domestic remedies. In this respect, they submitted that the applicant should request compensation pursuant to Article 141 of the Code on Criminal Procedure (\u201cCCP\u201d).<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the domestic remedy in application of Article 141 \u00a7 1 (d) of the CCP with regard to length of detention on remand was examined in the cases of A.\u015e. v. Turkey (no. 58271\/10, \u00a7\u00a085\u201195, 13\u00a0September 2016) and \u015eefikDemir v. Turkey, ((dec.), no.\u00a051770\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a017-35, 16 October 2012).<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0In the case of \u015eefikDemir (cited above) the Court held that that remedy had to be exhausted by the applicants whose convictions became final. It further ruled in its judgment of A.\u015e. (cited above, \u00a7 92) that as of June 2015 the domestic remedy provided for in Article 141 \u00a7 1 (d) of the CCP had to be exhausted by the applicants even before the proceedings became final.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0In the instant case, the Court notes that the applicant\u2019s detention ended on 27 January 2012, with his release from detention on remand, yet there is no information whether the proceedings against him are still pending or have become final. However, the Court observes that the applicant was entitled, in both situations, to seek compensation under Article 141 \u00a7 1 (d) of the CCP. However, he failed to do so.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court. However, as the Court has held on many occasions, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see \u0130\u00e7yer\u00a0v.\u00a0Turkey (dec.), no. 18888\/02, \u00a7 72, ECHR 2006 I). The Court has previously departed from this rule in cases concerning the above\u2011mentioned remedy in respect of the length of detention, which became applicable after the final decision on the criminal proceedings (see also, among others, Tutal\u00a0and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 11929\/12, 28 January 2014). The Court takes the view that the exception should be applied in the present case as well.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0As a result, taking into account the Government\u2019s objection, the Court concludes that the application must be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 13 December 2018.<\/p>\n Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Julia Laffranque
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n