ERDAL KILIÇÖZ/TÜRKİYE DAVASI

SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 26662/05 Erdal KILIÇÖZ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 April 2014 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Paul Lemmens, Robert Spano, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 July 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Erdal Kılıçöz, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr Y. Kömürcü, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. On 19 June 2003 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of attempted murder. 4. On the same day the judge at the Bakırköy Magistrates Court ordered his pre-trial detention. On 16 July 2003 the Bakırköy Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and four other persons, charging them with attempted murder, forming an organisation with intention to commit a crime, fraud and forgery.

2 KILIÇÖZ v. TURKEY DECISION 5. On 8 March 2005 the applicant was released pending trial. 6. On 26 December 2007 the court sentenced the applicant to three months and three days’ imprisonment for attempted assault. 7. On 7 March 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 26 December 2007. 8. According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are still pending. B. Relevant domestic law 9. A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Müdür Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013). COMPLAINT 10. The applicant maintained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he has not been tried within a reasonable time. THE LAW 11. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal ...” 12. 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 Müdür 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 p...