CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5B12D80C { width:187.62pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s53E9AB06 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s436018A5 { margin-left:15.01pt; text-align:left; padding-left:6.29pt; font-family:Arial } .sE805B006 { text-align:left; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sF6DACB3F { width:6.29pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD58B7531 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       SECOND SECTION             CASE OF DÖNER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   (Application no. 29994/02)       JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG       7 March 2017       FINAL   07/06/2017   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Döner and Others v. Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Julia Laffranque, President,   Işıl Karakaş,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Paul Lemmens,   Ksenija Turković,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 January 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 29994/02) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by twenty Turkish nationals on 17 July 2002. Their names and dates of birth are set out in the Appendix. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr S.N. Öztürk and Mr   M.   Filorinalı, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     On 10 September 2008 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, the applicants lived in Istanbul and their children attended different public elementary schools. 5.     On unspecified dates in December 2001 the applicants (save for Mr   Yılmaz Yavuz) each sent petitions to the Bağcılar, Esenler and Kadıköy Education Directorates with a request for their children to be provided with education in Kurdish in their respective elementary schools. It appears that similar petitions were submitted by many other parents of Kurdish ethnic origin around the same time. 6.     According to the examples submitted by the applicants, the petitions were worded, with slight variations, as follows: “I want my child who is studying at ... school to receive education in Kurdish, which is his [her] mother tongue, in addition to education in Turkish, at school...” 7.     On receipt of the petitions the relevant education directorates informed the Istanbul Security Directorate, which brought the matter to the attention of the principal public prosecutor’s office at the Istanbul State Security Court. 8.     On 28 December 2001 the public prosecutor asked the Anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate to identify the names and addresses of the persons who had petitioned the Bağcılar and Esenler Education Directorates with a request for education in Kurdish. It appears that on an unspecified date the same instruction was given in relation to the petitions lodged with the Kadıköy Education Directorate. 9.     On 8 January 2002 the public prosecutor requested a warrant authorising a search of the homes of forty people, including the applicants, who had submitted petitions. The public prosecutor considered that the petitions in question had been made on the instructions of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal armed organisation, and wished to collect relevant evidence from the petitioners’ homes. The Istanbul State Security Court granted the public prosecutor’s request that day. 10.     On 9 January 2002 the public prosecutor instructed the Anti ‑ terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate to conduct the searches with a view to finding evidence that could link the relevant persons to the PKK as aiders and abettors. It also instructed the Anti-terrorism branch to take the petitioners into police custody and question them in relation to the content and purpose of their petitions. The public prosecutor provided a list of questions to ask the petitioners, which mainly aimed to establish whether they had acted on the orders of the PKK. 11.     Early on the morning of 13 January 2002 police officers from the Anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate carried out a simultaneous search of all the properties, including the applicants’ houses. The search and seizure reports drafted by the police and signed by the applicants and other members of the household indicated that a search warrant had been issued by the Istanbul State Security Court on account of their petitions requesting education in Kurdish for their children. The reports also stated that the public prosecutor had ordered the petitioners’ arrest for questioning. According to these search and seizure reports, no illegal material was found in the applicants’ homes. 12.   The applicants were arrested and taken into police custody following the searches on 13 January 2002. The search and seizure reports and custody records submitted by the Government indicate that the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody at the following times:   Name Time of arrest Time of placement in detention centre Esma Döner 10.30 a.m. 4 p.m. Gülperi Döner unknown 1.30 p.m. Ayşe Döner unknown 1.30 p.m. Hanım Gülün 9.45 a.m. 4 p.m. Şahide Gümüş unknown 4 p.m. Hasibe Yılmaz unknown 4 p.m. Fatma Yılmaz 8.30 a.m. 1.30 p.m. Tenzile Akyol 8.30 a.m. 2.50 p.m. Güli Akyol 9.10 a.m. 2.50 p.m. Fatma Duruşkan 10 a.m. 2.50 p.m. Meryem Peker 10.25 a.m. 4.00 p.m. Mehmet Şirin Döner unknown 4.00 p.m. Şükrüye Temüroğlu unknown 2.55 p.m. Meliha Can 10.40 a.m. 3 p.m. Halime Günana 9.45 a.m. 3 p.m. Zübeyde Yavuz unknown 2.55 p.m. Asiya Karadeniz 10.50 a.m. 2.55 p.m. Zübeyde Sapan unknown 2.55 p.m. Kudret Dağ 10.10 a.m. 3 p.m. Yılmaz Yavuz unknown 1.30 p.m.   13.     On the same day the applicants were questioned by officers from the Anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate. They were asked, in particular, whether they had submitted the petitions in accordance with the PKK’s new “civil disobedience” strategy adopted at its Sixth National Conference held between 5 and 22 August 2001. The applicants Meryem Peker and Yılmaz Yavuz claimed that they had not submitted any petitions requesting education in Kurdish to any State authorities. The remaining applicants mainly denied any affiliation with the PKK and stated that they had submitted the petitions in question so that their children could learn their parents’ mother tongue. Some of the applicants also stated that the issue of submission of such petitions had also been discussed at the Bağcılar branch of HADEP ( Halkın Demokrasi Partisi – the People’s Democracy Party), a Turkish political party, which they attended from time to time. The applicants’ signed statements suggest that interpretation services were provided to three of them (Ayşe Döner, Fatma Yılmaz and Güli Akyol) on request. A note drafted by the police also suggests that the applicants other than Meryem Peker, Halime Günana, Asiya Karadeniz and Yılmaz Yavuz were illiterate. 14.     It appears that in the meantime, some of the applicants’ families contacted the Istanbul Bar Association seeking legal aid for their relatives during their detention in police custody. A lawyer was accordingly appointed. On 13 January 2002 the lawyer applied to the public prosecutor’s office at the Istanbul State Security Court for information in relation to twelve of the applicants (Esma Döner, Gülperi Döner, Ayşe Döner, Hanım Gülün, Şahide Gümüş, Hasibe Yılmaz, Fatma Yılmaz, Tenzile Akyol, Güli Akyol, Fatma Duruşkan, Meryem Peker and Mehmet Şirin Döner). In particular, he enquired about their legal status and the charges they were facing, and asked to meet them and to provide them with the necessary legal assistance. On the same day he applied to the Istanbul State Security Court to have the same twelve applicants released, arguing that they were being held in custody unlawfully. 15.     On the same day a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court decided that there was no need to decide on the lawyer’s request as there was no record of the individuals in question being detained in relation to an investigation conducted by the public prosecutor’s office. On 16 January 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court rejected a request by the lawyer to have the decision rendered by the judge set aside. 16.     In the meantime, on 14 January 2002 the public prosecutor informed the lawyer that the applicants in question were in custody on suspicion of being affiliated with an illegal organisation, and that there was no need to decide on the lawyer’s request to have access to them as no authorisation for their detention in police custody had yet been issued by the public prosecutor’s office. 17.     It appears that shortly after that decision, still on 14 January 2002, the public prosecutor authorised the applicants’ detention in police custody for four days between 13 and 17 January 2002. The authorisation was granted in response to a request made by the Anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, who had claimed that the applicants’ detention was needed for the completion of their files, in particular to verify whether the petitions had been submitted by the applicants themselves, whether they had any affiliation with the PKK and whether they were being searched for in connection with other offences (see paragraph 32 below for the legal basis for that authorisation). 18.     At 8.30 a.m. on 17 January 2002 the applicants were taken out of the detention centre and, following a routine medical check-up, were brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court. They admitted before the public prosecutor that they had written the petitions, either themselves or with the help of their children, but stated that they had no other motive than wanting their children to learn their mother tongue. They denied any involvement with the PKK. Some of the applicants claimed that they had submitted petitions after hearing about it from other parents at school or on television. According to the information provided by the Government, seven of the applicants (Ayşe Döner, Hasibe Yılmaz, Fatma Yılmaz, Tenzile Akyol, Güli Akyol, Meliha Can and Kudret Dağ) were assisted by an interpreter during questioning by the public prosecutor. 19.     At an unspecified time on 17 January 2002 the applicants (except for Meryem Peker, Mehmet Şirin Döner and Yılmaz Yavuz) were brought before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered their release after taking statements from them. The applicants concerned were actually released following the Istanbul State Security Court’s order. Seven of the applicants (Ayşe Döner, Şahide Gümüş, Hasibe Yılmaz, Fatma Yılmaz, Güli Akyol, Meliha Can and Kudret Dağ) were assisted by an interpreter before that court. It appears that Meryem Peker, Mehmet Şirin Döner and Yılmaz Yavuz were also released that day, but the decision ordering their release was not submitted to the Court. 20.     On the same day the public prosecutor filed an objection concerning the decision to release the applicants, claiming that it was evident from the statements made by them following their arrest that they had submitted the petitions in an organised manner with the aim of assisting the PKK’s “politicisation” process. The public prosecutor added that although the applicants appeared to have lawfully used their right to petition, in reality they were acting on the instructions of the PKK and were thus aiding and abetting that organisation. 21.     On 18 January 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court upheld the public prosecutor’s objection in respect of the applicants Esma Döner, Hanım Gülün, Hasibe Yılmaz, Meliha Can, Şükrüye Temüroğlu, Halime   Günana and Zübeyde Yavuz, and issued a warrant for their arrest. The court did not provide any reasons for its decision. 22.     On 22 January 2002 the lawyer asked the Istanbul State Security Court to set aside its decision of 18 January 2002 ordering the arrest of the relevant applicants. On 28 January 2002 the State Security Court dismissed that request, basing its decision on the nature of the offence, date of arrest, state of the evidence and contents of the case file. 23.     In the meantime, on 19 January 2002 Esma Döner, Hasibe Yılmaz and Zübeyde Yavuz were arrested on the basis of that warrant. The next day they were remanded in custody. It appears that the remaining four applicants named in the warrant could not be located. 24.     On 21 January 2002 the applicants Esma Döner and Zübeyde Yavuz filed objections concerning their detention on remand. 25.     On 22 January 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court dismissed Esma Döner and Zübeyde Yavuz’s objections, basing its decision on the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence. 26.     On 6 February 2002 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court decided not to prosecute the applicant Yılmaz Yavuz because of a lack of evidence against him. 27.     On the same day the public prosecutor issued an indictment against thirty-eight suspects, including the remaining applicants, accusing them of aiding and abetting an armed organisation under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law   no.   3713) in force at the material time. In the indictment the public prosecutor stated that following the arrest and conviction of their leader Abdullah Öcalan, the PKK had set out to pursue new policies. Accordingly, at the Sixth National Conference held between 5   and 22 August 2001, it had adopted the “Democratisation and Peace Project”, a new strategy which had involved undertaking non-violent activities of “civil disobedience” and aimed at leaving the State and its authorities in a difficult position in the international arena. The public prosecutor submitted that such organised acts of civil disobedience agreed on by the PKK had included petitioning the State authorities for education in Kurdish, dressing up in traditional Kurdish female costume, and applying to courts or population registration offices with requests for their Kurdish identities to appear on their national identity cards. When viewed against this background, the petitions in question – which had been submitted to certain authorities on predetermined dates and times – could not be considered to be individual acts. They had actually been part of an organised movement which had aimed to implement the decisions adopted by the PKK and thereby undermine the authority of the State. 28.     On 12 February 2002 the first-instance court ordered the release of the applicants Esma Döner, Hasibe Yılmaz and Zübeyde Yavuz pending the criminal proceedings. 29.     On 28 May 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court acquitted all the accused, including the applicants, because on the facts none of the elements of the crime of aiding and abetting an armed organisation had been present in their actions and there was no other evidence to support the allegations brought against them. The judgment became final on 5 June 2003. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Criminal Code (Law no. 765, repealed on 1 June 2005) 30.     At the time of the events at issue, Article 169 of the Criminal Code, which is no longer in force, provided: “Any person who, knowing that an armed gang or organisation is illegal, assists it, harbours its members, provides it with food, weapons and ammunition or clothes or facilitates its operations in any manner whatsoever shall be sentenced to no less than three and no more than five years’ heavy imprisonment ...” B.     Detention in police custody and judicial review of such detention 31.     Section 9(a) of the State Security Courts Act (Law no. 2845), which is no longer in force, provided that the offences under, inter alia , Article   169 of the Criminal Code fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of those courts. 32.     At the material time, section 16 provided: “Any person arrested in connection with an offence within the jurisdiction of State Security Courts shall be brought before a judge and questioned within forty-eight hours at the latest, not including the time needed to convey the detainee to the judge. If an offence has been committed jointly by three or more persons, this period may be extended for up to four days by written order of the public prosecutor owing to difficulties in collecting evidence or to the number of perpetrators, or for similar reasons. If the investigation is not concluded within that period, it may be extended for up to seven days at the request of the public prosecutor and by the decision of the judge. The period of seven days referred to in the second paragraph may be extended for up to ten days at the request of the public prosecutor and by the decision of the judge in respect of persons arrested in regions where a state of emergency has been declared in accordance with Article 120 of the Constitution. ...” 33.     Article 128 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no.   1412 repealed on 1 June 2005) in force at the material time provided that any person who was arrested, or whose police custody period was extended on the order of a public prosecutor, was entitled to challenge that measure before the appropriate judge with a view to securing his or her immediate release. The judge had to rule on the matter within twenty-four hours following an examination based on the case file, without holding a hearing. C.     Compensation for unlawful detention 34.     The relevant domestic law and practice under Law no. 466 on the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained (“the Unlawful Detention (Compensation) Act”), which is no longer in force, may be found in Adırbelli and Others v. Turkey (no. 20775/03, §   18, 2   December   2008). D.     Constitution 35.     At the material time the relevant provisions of the Constitution read as follows: Article 3 “1.     The State of Turkey constitutes with its territory and nation, an indivisible whole. The official language is Turkish.” Article 14 “1.     The rights and freedoms set out in the Constitution may not be exercised with a view to undermining the territorial integrity of the State, the unity of the nation or the democratic and secular Republic founded on human rights. No provision of this Constitution shall be interpreted in a manner that would grant the State or individuals the right to engage in activities intended to destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms embodied in the Constitution or to restrict them beyond what is permitted by the Constitution. ...” Article 42 “No one may be deprived of the right to instruction and education. ... “No language other than Turkish shall be taught as a mother tongue to Turkish citizens at any institutions of training or education. Foreign languages to be taught in institutions of training and education and the rules to be followed by schools conducting training and education in a foreign language shall be determined by law. The provisions of international treaties are reserved.” Article 74 “Citizens and foreigners resident in Turkey, with the condition of observing the principle of reciprocity, have the right to apply in writing to the competent authorities and to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey with regard to requests and complaints concerning themselves or the public...” E.     Teaching of the Kurdish language 36.     At the time of the events in question, domestic law did not provide for the teaching of or in the Kurdish language at any level of education in public or private institutions. On 3 August 2002 the Foreign Language Education and Teaching Act (Law no. 2923 of 14 October 1983) was amended by Law   no. 4771 with a view to regulating the principles of education and training of citizens of Turkey in the different languages and dialects traditionally used in daily life. The title of the legislation in question was changed to the “Foreign Language Education and Teaching and the Learning of Different Languages and Dialects used by Turkish Citizens Act”. 37.     On 30 July 2003 an amendment was made to the second sentence of section   2(a) of Law no. 2923 with a view to enabling the opening of private courses for the teaching of the different languages and dialects used by citizens of Turkey. 38.     The Regulation on Foreign Language Education and Training was issued on 31 May 2006 by the Ministry of Education in order to regulate the principles of teaching foreign languages at the public and private schools affiliated to the Ministry. Moreover, by decisions dated 25 June 2012, 7   September 2012 and 23   January   2014 the Board of Education and Training of the Ministry of Education added “living languages and dialects (Kurdish language)” to the weekly timetable of primary and secondary schools as an elective subject. 39.     Section 2 of Law no. 2923 was amended on 2 March 2014 by Law   no. 6529 with a view to facilitating the opening of private schools to provide education and training in a language or dialect traditionally used in daily life by citizens of Turkey. In line with this amendment, on 5 July 2014 the Regulation on Foreign Language Education and Training was also amended to enable education and training in a language or dialect traditionally used by citizens of Turkey in their daily lives in private schools. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 40.     The applicants complained under Article 5 §§ 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention that the authorities had failed to inform them of the reasons for their arrest, that they had not been brought promptly before a judge, and that there had not been any effective remedies to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest and detention. They also complained under Article   5 § 5 that they had had no right to compensation under domestic law in respect of those complaints. The relevant paragraphs of Article 5 provide as follows: Article 5 “2.     Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3.     Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph   1   (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power... 4.     Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5.     Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.” A.     Admissibility 1.     Failure to exhaust domestic remedies 41.     The Government asked the Court to dismiss the applicants’ complaints under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention for failure to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article   35 § 1. They maintained that the applicants could have sought compensation under the Unlawful Detention (Compensation) Act (Law   no.   466). 42.     The applicants rejected the Government’s arguments. In this connection, they submitted a copy of a court decision concerning a person who had been arrested and taken into custody at the same time as them and with respect to the same events, whose claim for compensation under Law   no.   466 was dismissed by the domestic court. 43.     The Court considers that the Government’s objection is inextricably linked to the substance of the applicants’ complaints under Article 5 §§   4 and 5 of the Convention. It follows that this issue should be joined to the merits of those complaints (see, for instance, Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no.   46221/99, 14 December 2000; Süleyman Erdem v. Turkey , no.   49574/99, §   28, 19 September 2006; and Elğay v. Turkey , no. 18992/03, §   26, 20   January 2009). 2.     Other admissibility issues (a)     Article 5 § 2 of the Convention 44.     The applicants complained under Article 5 § 2 that the authorities had failed to inform them promptly of the reasons for their arrest. 45.     The Government argued that the applicants had been promptly informed of the reasons for their arrest. 46.     The Court notes that the general principles governing the elementary safeguard embodied in Article 5 § 2 of the Convention were set out in the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom (30 August 1990, §   40, Series A no. 182). 47.     The Court observes that the search and seizure reports dated 13   January 2002, which were signed by the applicants, clearly indicated that a search warrant had been issued by the Istanbul State Security Court on account of their petitions requesting education in Kurdish for their children, and that the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court had ordered their arrest in order to question them in relation to those petitions. The Court stresses that none of the applicants claimed that they were unable to fully understand the content of the search and seizure reports, which gave a fairly precise indication as to why they were being arrested. 48.     The Court also notes that subsequent to their arrest at their homes, the applicants were taken to the Istanbul Security Directorate for questioning. According to the interview records, which also bore their signatures, the applicants were asked specific questions relating to the petitions and their suspected affiliation with the PKK, with the assistance of an interpreter as needed (see paragraph 13 above). The Court observes that only three of the applicants were assisted by an interpreter during police questioning, whereas more applicants requested such assistance during their subsequent questioning by the public prosecutor and judge at the Istanbul State Security Court (see paragraphs 18 and 19 above). Be that as it may, in the absence of any allegations from any of the applicants that they were denied the assistance of an interpreter before the police despite their requests, the Court is satisfied that all applicants sufficiently understood the subject matter of the police questioning, which once again clearly indicated the suspicions against them. 49.     Having regard to the foregoing, and bearing in mind that Article   5   §   2 does not require that reasons for an arrest be given in any particular form, the Court concludes that the applicants must be deemed to have been aware of the reasons of their arrest at the time of or shortly after their arrest (see, for example, Kerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.   40451/98, 7 December 1999; Dikme v. Turkey , no. 20869/92, §   56, ECHR 2000 ‑ VIII; and Süleyman Erdem , cited above, §   43). It follows that this part of the application should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article   35   §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. (b)     The remaining complaints under Article 5 of the Convention 50.     The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints under Article   5   §§   3,   4   and 5 of the Convention are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also notes that these complaints are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 51.     The applicants complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that they had not been brought promptly before a judge in connection with their detention in police custody between 13 and 17 January 2002. 52.     The Government submitted that the applicants’ allegation under this head was ill-founded as they had been brought promptly before a judge following their arrest. 53.     The Court reiterates the importance of the guarantees afforded by Article 5 § 3 to an arrested person (see, among other authorities, Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 118, ECHR 2010). The main purpose of this provision is to ensure that arrested persons are physically brought before a judicial officer promptly, which provides an important measure of protection against arbitrary behaviour, incommunicado detention and ill-treatment. 54.     While the requirement of promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its specific features (see, among other authorities, Aquilina v.   Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999 ‑ III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation (see, for example, Brogan and Others v.   the United Kingdom , 29   November 1988, § 62, Series A no. 145 ‑ B and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006 ‑ X). 55.     Turning to the case at hand, the Court notes that the applicants were arrested on 13 January 2002, and were brought before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court on 17 January 2002, who ordered their release. The Court cannot, however, establish the exact period that elapsed between their arrest and their appearance before the judge, because the custody records submitted by the Government indicate the time of arrest for only some of the applicants and provide no information about the time of their appearance before the judge (see paragraphs 12 and 19 above). 56.     The Court nevertheless notes from the information available that the time the applicants spent in the detention centre alone  without taking into account the periods between their arrest and actual placement in detention (which for some of the applicants was as long as six hours and twenty minutes) and after their removal from the detention centre until their appearance before the judge  was between three days and seventeen hours and four days (see paragraph 12). The Court considers, even on the basis of that limited information, that the applicants were not brought “promptly” before a judge for the reasons set out below. 57.     The Court notes in this connection that while it has required that the initial review by a judge take place within a “maximum” of four days after arrest (see McKay , cited above, §   33, and Magee and Others v. the United Kingdom , nos. 26289/12, 29062/12 and 29891/12, §§77-78, ECHR 2015 (extracts)), this case-law must not be understood as requiring no justification where the relevant period is less than four days (see Gal v.   Ukraine , no. 6759/11, § 28, 16 April 2015). Accordingly, Article 5 §   3 may still be breached before the end of the four-day period in the absence of specific circumstances justifying detention for such a period of time (see, for instance, Kandzhov v. Bulgaria , no. 68294/01, §   66, 6   November   2008 and Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria , no. 34529/10, §§ 158-159, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). 58.     The Court notes that in the present case, permission to extend the applicants’ detention until 17 January 2002 was obtained mainly to complete the applicants’ files (see paragraph 17 above). The Government did not, however, provide any information regarding any specific investigatory measures taken during this period that required the applicants’ deprivation of liberty, or present any specific difficulties or exceptional circumstances which would have prevented the authorities from bringing the applicants before a judge much sooner, considering in particular the non-complex and non-violent nature of their allegedly criminal act (see, mutatis mutandis , Kandzhov , cited above, § 66 and Gutsanovi , cited above, §§   158-159). 59.     Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicants were not brought promptly before a judge following their arrest in the particular circumstances of the case. The incompleteness of the custody records in relation to the exact times of arrest and appearance before a judge, which suggest that most of the applicants were in fact kept in police custody for longer than four days, must also be taken into consideration in this regard (see paragraph 55 above). 60.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 2.     Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 61.     The applicants alleged under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that there had been no effective remedies in domestic law to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest and detention in police custody. They argued in particular that they had had no access to legal assistance or to their families during their detention in police custody, and that the Istanbul State Security Court had used formulaic reasoning to dismiss their objections and had delivered its decisions without hearing them in person. 62.     The Government did not submit any observations on this complaint other than those regarding the remedy provided under Law no. 466 (see paragraph 41 above). 63.     The Court reiterates that the purpose of Article 5 § 4 is to assure to persons who are arrested and detained the right to actively seek judicial supervision of the lawfulness of the measure to which they are thereby subjected (see, mutatis mutandis , De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium , 18   June 1971, § 76, Series A no. 12). A remedy must be made available during a person’s detention to allow that person to obtain speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention, capable of leading, where appropriate, to his or her release. The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis , Vachev v.   Bulgaria , no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004 ‑ VIII (extracts), and Stoichkov v.   Bulgaria , no. 9808/02, § 66, 24 March 2005). The accessibility of a remedy implies, inter alia , that the circumstances voluntarily created by the authorities must be such as to give applicants a realistic opportunity to use the remedy (see, mutatis mutandis , Čonka v. Belgium , no. 51564/99, §§   44 and 55, ECHR 2002 ‑ I). 64.     Turning first to the objection raised by the Government, the Court notes that it has already examined and rejected similar arguments in previous cases where it held that a claim under Law   no. 466 could not constitute proceedings of the type required by Article   5 § 4 on account of the lack of jurisdiction in such proceedings to order release if the detention was found to be unlawful or to award reparation for a breach of the Convention if the detention complied with domestic law as in the instant case (see, for instance, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, §   71, ECHR   2005 ‑ IV, and Süleyman Erdem , cited above, §   33). The Court finds no particular circumstances in the instant case which would require it to depart from such findings. 65.     The Court secondly notes that under Article 128 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the material time, the applicants were entitled, as soon as they were taken into custody, to apply to a judge to challenge the lawfulness of that detention or of the decision of the public prosecutor to extend it, and the judge had to decide the matter within twenty-four hours of an examination based on the case file (see paragraph   33 above). The Court does not, however, consider that the relevant provision constituted an effective remedy on the facts of the case before it. 66.     It observes in this connection, first and foremost, that the applicants were not given a realistic opportunity by the authorities to use the remedy in question, bearing in mind that most of them were illiterate with a limited understanding of Turkish and no legal training, and were also denied any access to their lawyers or families during the period of their detention. In the Court’s opinion, the specific circumstances the applicants found themselves in while in incommunicado detention in police custody made it very difficult for them to have effective recourse to the remedy under Article   128 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure (see, mutatis mutandis , Öcalan [GC], cited above, § 70). 67.     The Court also notes that it has already found in similar circumstances that the remedy which existed in theory under Article   128 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure was not effective in practice, since it offered little prospect of success and did not comply with the procedural guarantees required under Article 5 § 4 (see, for example, Öcalan [GC], cited above, §§ 66-71; Maçin v. Turkey , no.   52083/99, §§   30 ‑ 33, 4   May 2006; and İpek and Others v. Turkey , nos.   17019/02 and 30070/02, §   41, 3   February 2009 and the cases cited therein). In the absence of any arguments by the Government to the contrary, the Court sees no reason to depart from its findings in those cases. It follows that, even in the case of the applicants who had managed to file objections concerning their detention despite the difficulties noted above, the proceedings under Article   128 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure did not provide an effective remedy satisfying the requirements of Article   5   § 4 of the Convention. The Court finds it particularly striking that when examining the objections raised by the relevant applicants against their detention, the judge at the Istanbul State Security Court did not even verify whether or not they were in police custody, which reinforces the conclusion about the ineffectiveness of this remedy on the facts of the instant case (see the judge’s decision in paragraph 15 above). 68.     The Court acknowledges that no issue arises with regard to the right to a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of detention under Article 5 §   4 of the Convention where a detainee is released before any speedy review could have taken place (see, for instance, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom , 30   August   1990, § 45, Series A no. 182; Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no.   48321/99, § 159, ECHR 2003 ‑ X; and M.B. and Others v. Turkey , no.   36009/08, § 45, 15   June   2010). Moreover, it reiterates that a period of up to four days before first appearance before a judge may be compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 (see paragraph 57 above). Nevertheless, the wording of Article   5 § 4 indicates that it becomes operative immediately after arrest or detention and is applicable to “[e]veryone who is deprived of his liberty” (see Petkov and Profirov v.   Bulgaria , nos. 50027/08 and 50781/09, § 67, 24   June 2014). The right to “take proceedings” thus arises at that stage, with the consequence that the denial of the right to institute such proceedings – subject to reasonable practical considerations – will raise an issue under Article 5 § 4, all the more so when such a denial is in breach of domestic law. Thus, in the case of Petkov and Profirov , the Court held that Article 5 § 4 required the provision of a judicial remedy to the applicants, who were detained in police custody for less than twenty-four hours, to enable them to challenge their detention and obtain release (cited above, §§   64-71). 69.     In the present case, while the applicants were released by a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court after approximately four days’ detention following the automatic review of their detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 3, during that four day period they were practically denied access to a remedy to challenge the lawfulness of their detention for the reasons explained above which, in the Court’s opinion, contravenes not only the relevant requirements of Turkish law but also goes against the object and purpose of Article 5 § 4. 70.     Having regard to the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection under this head and finds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 3.     Article 5 § 5 of the Convention 71.     The applicants complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that they had not had a right to compensation in respect of the alleged violation of their rights under Article 5. 72.     The Government did not submit any specific observations under this head, save for those mentioned above (see paragraph 41). 73.     The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4 (see Elğay , cited above, § 30) . The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the preceding paragraphs of Article   5 has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court (see Saraçoğlu and Others v. Turkey , no. 4489/02, § 50, 29 November 2007). 74.     The Court has found in the present case that the applicants were not brought promptly before a judge within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 and that their right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in police custody was infringed, in violation of Article 5 § 4 (see paragraphs 60 and 70 above). It follows that Article 5 § 5 of the Convention is applicable. The Court must therefore establish whether or not Turkish law at the time of the events in question afforded the applicants in this case an enforceable right to compensation for the breaches of Article 5. 75.     In this connection, the Court observes that it was open to the applicants to bring a claim for compensation under section 1(6) of Law   no.   466 as the criminal proceedings against them had ended with their acquittal. However, the Court has already found in other cases raising similar issues that when awarding compensation under Law   no. 466, the national courts based their assessment solely on the fact that there had been an acquittal. The national courts’ assessment was therefore an automatic consequence of the acquittal and did not amount to the establishment of a violation of any of paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5 (see, for example, Sinan Tanrıkulu and Others v. Turkey , no. 50086/99, § 50, 3   May   2007; Medeni Kavak v. Turkey , no. 13723/02, § 34, 3 May 2007; Saraçoğlu and Others , cited above, § 52; Elğay , cited above, §   32; and Mekiye Demirci v. Turkey , no.   17722/