SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42536/13
Akın TÜRKELİ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 September 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Julia Laffranque, President,
Paul Lemmens,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 June 2013,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Akın Türkeli, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Bursa.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the cases
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. At the material time, the applicant was serving his military service at Cyprus Turkish Peace Forces.
5. On an unspecified date, his military supervisor imposed a seven-day room confinement sanction on the applicant.
6. The sanction was executed between 8 and 15 January 2013.
B. Relevant domestic law
7. A description of the domestic law at the material time can be found in Hasan Uzun v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 10755/13, §§ 68-71, 30 April 2013) and Yavuz Selim Güler v. Turkey (no. 76476/12, §§ 7-11, 15 December 2015).
COMPLAINT
8. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention about the disciplinary room confinement sanction which had been imposed on him by his military superior.
THE LAW
9. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies. At the outset, they stated that as the applicant’s detention had ended on 15 January 2013, he could have applied to the Constitutional Court. Alternatively, they argued that the applicant could have applied to the Supreme Military Administrative Court to have the disciplinary sanction annulled or to claim compensation on account of his unlawful detention. In support of their arguments, the Government submitted sample decisions delivered by the Supreme Military Administrative Court in similar cases.
10. The applicant did not comment on the Government’s preliminary objections.
11. 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 a remedy to be used (see Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, §§ 68-71, 30 April 2013).
12. In the present case, the applicant’s detention was executed between 8 and 15 January 2013, presumably shortly after it had been ordered, and thus fell within the Constitutional Court’s temporal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court observes that the applicant failed to exhaust this remedy before the Constitutional Court.
13. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that there is no need to examine the Government’s remaining preliminary objections given that the application is in any case inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
14. 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 12 October 2017.
Hasan BakırcıJulia Laffranque
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy