CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 10 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s25D850AD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11.5pt } .s69644C6F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11.5pt } .s91672CE8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:11.5pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sABCF0DBD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s8565C3AF { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s77D491C3 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s63DE7A05 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s833B1EA7 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5822B218 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 68.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sD46FFE5D { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4859184F { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB12058F2 { width:8.11pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF5711BAC { width:6.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s733C8A98 { margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s64A6B22D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:43.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBA366A80 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0072bc } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sAB51C47C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.94pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.26pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sED96C1EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sACC79E0A { width:13.74pt; display:inline-block } .s8D89FD47 { width:11.73pt; display:inline-block } .sD027E1AE { width:12.4pt; display:inline-block } .sFCC17DF1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s3635F015 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s980E2CFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6FC64B9D { width:2.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE4EB4F8C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3136E68F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEE251087 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2195BF6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s53863CAB { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:43.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5CCD731E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD3DE65B6 { width:24.12pt; display:inline-block } .s43EE46AB { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:43.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCAC62278 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.4pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBA466361 { font-family:Arial; color:#002060 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFB95DF04 { width:189.96pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF KAVALA v. TURKEY (Application no. 28749/18)   JUDGMENT   Art 15 • Derogation • Limits Art 5 § 1 (c) • Detention on the basis of suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences of attempting to overthrow the Government or the constitutional order “by force and violence” • Lack of reasonable suspicion that the applicant had had violent intentions • Case file concerned acts related to the mere exercise of rights guaranteed by the Convention or normal activism on the part of a human-rights defender • Derogation could not remove the requirement that suspicions had to be reasonable Art 5 § 4 • “Speedy” review • Long period that could not be adequately justified by the Constitutional Court’s exceptional workload following the state of emergency • Significant periods of delay both before and after the state of emergency was lifted Art 18 • Extended detention of a human-rights defender with the ulterior purpose of reducing him to silence • Chilling effect on civil society Art 46 • Execution of judgments • Individual measures • Immediate release of applicant   STRASBOURG 10 December 2019 FINAL   11/05/2020   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. Table of Contents PROCEDURE THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.   The Gezi Park events 1.   General context 2.   Information submitted by the Government 3.   Information transmitted by the Commissioner for Human Rights B.   The attempted coup of 15 July 2016 and the declaration of a state of emergency C.   The applicant’s placement in pre-trial detention D.   Extension of the pre-trial detention E.   The indictment of 19 February 2019 1.   First part of the bill of indictment 2.   Second part of the bill of indictment 3.   Third part of the bill of indictment F.   The applicant’s individual application before the Constitutional Court G.   Other information provided by the applicant H.   The application to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.   The Turkish Constitution B.   Relevant provisions of the Criminal Code C.   Relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) D.   Legislative decrees nos. 667 and 668 III.     COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIALS IV.     THE URGENT APPEAL PROCEDURE AND THE WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION V.     NOTICE OF DEROGATION BY TURKEY THE LAW I.     SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION II.     PRELIMINARY QUESTION CONCERNING THE DEROGATION BY TURKEY III.     THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.     Objection under Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention B.     The objection based on failure to exhaust domestic remedies IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 §§ 1 AND 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Admissibility B.     Merits 1.   The parties’ submissions 2.     The Court’s assessment V.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE LACK OF A SPEEDY JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT A.     Admissibility B.     Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 2.     The third parties C.     The Court’s assessment 1.     Relevant principles 2.     Application of these principles VI.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   18 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Admissibility B.     Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 2.     The third-party interveners 3.     The Court’s assessment VII.     OTHER COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 5 §§ 3 AND 4 OF THE CONVENTION VIII.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 41 AND 46 OF THE CONVENTION FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE BOŠNJAK PARTLY CONCURRING AND PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE YÜKSEL   In the case of Kavala v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Robert Spano, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Julia Laffranque,   Valeriu Griţco,   Egidijus Kūris,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Saadet Yüksel, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 October and 12   November 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 28749/18) 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 a Turkish national, Mr Mehmet Osman Kavala (“the applicant”), on 8 June 2018. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr K. Bayraktar, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant alleged, in particular, that his arrest and pre-trial detention had not been justified and had been carried out in bad faith. He also complained that the Constitutional Court had not ruled speedily on the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention. Under Article   18 of the Convention, he submitted that his rights had been restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. In this connection, he argued that the detention measure imposed on him amounted to a form of judicial harassment, the purpose of which was to exert a dissuasive effect on human-rights defenders. 4.     On 23 August 2018 the Court decided to apply Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and grant the applicant’s request for priority treatment of the application. Under its new prioritisation policy, effective since 22   May 2017, cases where applicants have been deprived of their liberty as a direct consequence of an alleged violation of Convention rights, as in the present case, are to be given priority. 5.     On 30 August 2018 the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 and Article   18 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3. 6.     The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. 7.     The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (“the Commissioner for Human Rights”) exercised her right to intervene in the proceedings and submitted written comments (Article   36 §   3 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2). 8.     In addition, written comments were submitted to the Court by the following non-governmental organisations: PEN International, Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project and the Association for Freedom of Expression (“the intervening non-governmental organisations”). The Section President granted leave to the organisations in question to intervene under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3. 9.     The Government and the applicant each replied to the intervening parties’ comments. 10.     On 25 June 2019 the Government submitted further observations and informed the Court that the Constitutional Court had decided to dismiss the applicant’s individual application. In a letter dated 26 June 2019 the Court invited the applicant to submit comments on the matter. The applicant did not submit observations on this point. On 10 July 2019 the Government sent a copy of the Constitutional Court’s judgment. THE FACTS     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 11.     The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul. He is currently being held in detention. 12.     The applicant, a businessman, is a human-rights defender in Turkey. He has been involved in setting up numerous non-governmental organisations (“NGOs”) and civil-society movements which are active in the areas of human rights, culture, social studies, historical reconciliation and environmental protection. In 2002 he set up the limited public company Anadolu Kültür, which works to promote peace, reconciliation and human rights by supporting artistic and cultural initiatives, particularly those organised outside Turkey’s major cultural centres. Several of this NGO’s projects, organised in collaboration with the Turkish local authorities, have received support from many internationally known arts foundations and from the European Union. 13.     In her written observations, the Commissioner for Human Rights explained that the applicant has been a long-standing and trusted partner of many international bodies working on human rights in Turkey, including the Commissioner’s Office. She indicated that, like all four Commissioners since the inception of the Office, she has been in contact with many of the NGOs he helped to found or with him personally. In her view, he and these NGOs have been reliable and objective sources of information about the human-rights situation in Turkey, always displaying the highest level of professionalism, dedication and respect for human rights. She added that during their numerous dealings with them, neither she nor her predecessors had received any indication of any incitement to violence or crime, or justification and trivialisation of violence on their part. 14.     The applicant was arrested in Istanbul on 18   October 2017. He was suspected of having committed two offences under Article   312 (attempting to overthrow the Government) and Article 309 (attempting to overthrow the constitutional order) of the Criminal Code. The accusations against the applicant were related to the Gezi Park events which occurred between May and September 2013 (Article 312 of the Criminal Code) and the attempted coup of 15   July 2016 (Article 309 of the Criminal Code). The Gezi Park events General context 15.     In September 2011 the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipal Council ( Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediye Meclisi) adopted a plan to pedestrianise Taksim Square in Istanbul. This plan included blocking traffic routes around Taksim Square and rebuilding barracks (demolished in 1940) in order to create a shopping centre in the new premises. These barracks were to be built on the site of Gezi Park, one of the few green spaces in the centre of Istanbul. Professional bodies such as the Chamber of Architects and the Chamber of Landscape Architects brought numerous administrative proceedings in an attempt to have the project set aside. In 2012 several demonstrations were organised to protest against the planned destruction of Gezi Park. Platforms bringing together several associations, trade unions, professional bodies and political parties, including the “Taksim Solidarity” ( Taksim Dayanışma ) collective, were accordingly set up to coordinate and organise the protests. 16.     Following the start of demolition work in Gezi Park on 27   May 2013, about fifty environmental activists and local residents occupied the park in an attempt to prevent its destruction. The protest movements were initially led by ecologists and local residents objecting to the destruction of the park. On 31 May 2013, however, the police intervened violently to remove the persons occupying the park. There were confrontations between the police and the demonstrators. The protests then escalated in June and July and spread to several towns and cities in Turkey, taking the form of meetings and demonstrations which sometimes led to violent clashes. Four civilians and two police officers were killed, and thousands of people were wounded. Information submitted by the Government 17.     The Government considered that the incidents which occurred in Gezi Park (“the Gezi Park events”) had admittedly originated in a movement opposing the decisions about the park’s future and the use of force by the police, but that they had subsequently been transformed into an insurrection (“ kalkışma ”) backed by numerous terrorist organisations. In this connection, they alleged that flags and posters of terrorist organisations, including the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party) or the DHKP-C (People’s Revolutionary Liberation Party Front), had been displayed in several areas where the demonstrations took place, and that members of these organisations had mingled with the demonstrators in order to sow terror. 18.     The Government also noted that the Gezi Park events had occurred between 28 May and 25 September 2013 and that 3,611,208 persons had taken part. 5,513 individuals had been arrested and 189 persons had been placed in detention; 697 law-enforcement officers and 4,329   civilians had been injured, and four civilians and two police officers had lost their lives. They indicated that violent demonstrators had committed multiple acts of vandalism, targeting, according to the official figures, 292   company premises, 116   police vehicles, 271 private vehicles, 14 buildings belonging to the Justice and Development Party (the ruling party, “the AKP”) and numerous public buildings. 19.     According to the Government, foreign media had also shown a keen interest in the events and had broadcast them live, presenting them to the international community as peaceful demonstrations organised by environmental protection groups and contesting the legitimacy of the democratically elected Government. Falsified images and false information on social media had also given the impression that the police had systematically committed acts of torture or even murder. In addition, the prosecutors’ offices had opened numerous criminal investigations into the Gezi Park events, in relation to offences such as homicide, the illegal possession or swapping of dangerous substances, the display of symbols openly challenging State sovereignty, disseminating propaganda in support of terrorist organisations, damage to public property, grievous bodily harm, membership of an armed terrorist organisation, etc. Information transmitted by the Commissioner for Human Rights 20.     The Commissioner for Human Rights considered that her Office could provide an objective overview of the Gezi events on account of the extensive work conducted by it during the relevant period. She explained that her predecessor had visited Turkey immediately after the events of 1 to 5   July 2013, where he had met not only various civil society actors who had been involved in these events, but also the Turkish authorities, including the Minister of Justice, the Undersecretary of the Ministry of the Interior and the then Governor of Istanbul. Moreover, he had published his conclusions on these events in a report focusing on the conduct of law-enforcement officials in Turkey (see Report by Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights, following his visit to Turkey from 1 to 5   July 2013, CommDH(2013)24, 26 November 2013, https://rm.coe.int/16806db680 ). 21.     According to the Commissioner for Human Rights, these events were triggered as a result of the excessive use of force against a small number of peaceful protestors trying to stop the cutting of trees in Gezi Park in Istanbul and the construction of a shopping centre on Taksim Square at the end of May 2013. Another important factor was the failure of the mainstream media to report on the initial events owing to self-censorship. The initial confrontation led to a wave of demonstrations against the government across Turkey, unprecedented both in their geographic scope and in the numbers of participants. During the initial phases of the events, participation was wide-ranging, including professional associations such as the Chambers of Architects and Engineers, Bar Associations and Medical Associations, trade unions, and many NGOs active in different sectors, such as the environment, women’s rights, LGBTI rights, and human rights in general, as well as citizens’ platforms and other spontaneous initiatives co-ordinating the participation of civil society. Among these, “Taksim Solidarity” was considered to be the most representative and had played a very prominent role during these events. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s predecessor had also met representatives of this platform during the above-mentioned visit. The applicant was not part of this civil-society platform. 22.     The Commissioner for Human Rights submitted that the Gezi events had also been marked by heavy-handed interventions by the authorities. The Commissioner’s Office had received a large number of serious, consistent and credible allegations of human-rights violations committed by law-enforcement officials against peaceful demonstrators or bystanders. According to the Commissioner, the overwhelming majority of these allegations had not been effectively investigated by the Turkish judiciary on account of the long-standing pattern of impunity for the security forces in Turkey. The attempted coup of 15 July 2016 and the declaration of a state of emergency 23.     The applicant was also suspected of having sought to overthrow the constitutional order. This second charge was related to the attempted coup of 15 July 2016. 24.     During the night of 15 to 16 July 2016 a group of members of the Turkish armed forces calling themselves the “Peace at Home Council” attempted to carry out a military coup aimed at overthrowing the democratically installed parliament, government and President of Turkey. During the attempted coup, soldiers under the instigators’ control bombarded several strategic State buildings, including the Parliament building and the presidential compound, attacked the hotel where the President was staying, held the Chief of General Staff hostage, attacked television channels and fired shots at demonstrators. During the night of violence, more than 250 people were killed and more than 2,500 were injured. The day after the attempted military coup, the national authorities blamed the network linked to Fetullah Gülen, a Turkish citizen living in Pennsylvania (United States of America) and considered to be the leader of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY (“Gülenist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). Several criminal investigations were subsequently initiated by the appropriate prosecuting authorities in respect of suspected members of that organisation. 25.     On 20 July 2016 the Government declared a state of emergency for a period of three months as from 21 July 2016; the state of emergency was subsequently extended for further periods of three months by the Council of Ministers, chaired by the President. 26.     On 21 July 2016 the Turkish authorities gave notice to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of a derogation from the Convention under Article 15. 27.     During the state of emergency, the Council of Ministers, chaired by the President, passed thirty-seven legislative decrees (nos. 667-703) under Article 121 of the Constitution. The legislative decrees also placed significant restrictions on the procedural safeguards laid down in domestic law for anyone held in police custody or pre-trial detention (for example, extension of the police custody period, restrictions on access to case files and on the examination of objections against detention orders). 28.     On 18 July 2018 the state of emergency was lifted. The applicant’s placement in pre-trial detention 29.     As indicated above (see paragraph 14), on 18 October 2017 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul and placed in police custody. He was suspected of having sought to overthrow the constitutional order and the Government through force and violence. 30.     Later that day, following a request by the Istanbul public prosecutor, the applicant’s office was searched in his presence. During the search, nine USB keys, three computer hard drives and a mobile telephone were seized. 31.     On 20 October 2017 the Istanbul 10th Magistrate’s Court decided to restrict access to the investigation file, in accordance with Article   153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In its decision the magistrate’s court held that, given the nature of the alleged offence and the evidence submitted to the file, examination of the investigation file by the suspect and his lawyers would jeopardise the conduct of the investigation. 32.     An objection to this decision, submitted on 1   February 2018 by the applicant’s representatives, was dismissed on 9   February 2018. 33.     In the meantime, on 25 October 2017 the Istanbul public prosecutor decided to extend the applicant’s custody by seven days, in accordance with Article   91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”) and Articles   10 and 11 of Legislative Decree no. 684 on the measures taken in the context of the state of emergency. 34.     On 30 October 2017 M.P., a witness against the applicant, gave statements to the police (see also paragraphs 36, 53 and 62 below). 35.     On 31 October 2017 the applicant, assisted by his lawyers, was questioned about the accusations against him by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters. According to the Government, before this interview the applicant had been informed in detail of the offences with which he was charged and about the evidence gathered. 36.     According to the record of this interview, the applicant was questioned about the Gezi Park events, about his relations with journalists, academics, numerous human-rights defenders and members or heads of NGOs, and about his alleged contacts with Professor H.J.B., former director of the Wilson Center in the United States. The Government indicated that a criminal investigation was pending against Prof. H.J.B. in connection with the attempted coup of 15 July 2016; in particular, he is suspected of having instigated it. The relevant parts of the record of the applicant’s questioning read as follows: “[The police officers read out statements by M.P., who accused the applicant of acting for G.S. [an American businessman and founder of the Open Society Institute] in Turkey and of having organised and financed the “Gezi insurrection”, and asked questions about his alleged ties to terrorist organisations.] Mr Kavala: These are unfounded and defamatory statements ... I work actively with three NGOs, Anadolu Kültür, the Foundation for an Open Society and TESEV, and I take part in meetings organised in the context of their activities. However, I did not take part in any international meeting about the Gezi Park events prior to their occurrence. As you can see from my emails, I merely added my voice to the demands that Gezi Park remain a public part and I supported the activities to that end. I am convinced that parks are essential sites in urban life. In addition, my office and the building where I was born are located on the Elmadağ district, near the park; as a result, I regularly use this park on my daily travels. It is for this reason that I took part in peaceful activities to defend the environment ... I have no other aim than to protect Gezi Park as a public park. I do not have any links to the organisations in question. I am against the activities carried out by these organisations for other purposes. I know that NGOs are carrying out activities to ensure that Gezi Park remains a public park. So far as I am aware, the Solidarity Taksim collective, set up following the involvement of the union of Turkish Chambers of Architects, was responsible for organising and coordinating the events. I was not part of this group. I took part in the movement in a personal capacity, and did not take any steps to mobilise the NGOs ... The allegation that I provided financial support to the campaign [in question] is incorrect. My only contribution was to supply young trees. I was previously accused of having conducted fund-raising activities in order to provide gas masks. As a result, an inspection was carried out in the premises of the Foundation for an Open Society. However, no evidence was found to corroborate these allegations.” The police officers read out transcripts of a telephone conversation with F.B.G. on 24 July 2013, and asked the applicant for information about his ties with that individual and about his bid to obtain financial support from European Union funds as part of his plans to set up a news channel. The applicant replied that F.B.G. was a journalist who had lost her job and wanted to set up a news channel, and that she had asked for his backing. He added that it had proved impossible to implement this project. In response to the question about the financial support requested by F.B.G., the applicant replied as follows: “.. The Europe in question refers to the grants paid to NGOs by the European Commission. So far as I remember, this conversation took place after the Gezi events...” The applicant was also questioned about a telephone conversation with O.K. The police officers read out an extract from this conversation in which the following phrase was used: “the lobby has taken a decision about the place where the meeting will be held” (“ lobinin toplantının nerede yapılacağı konusunda karar aldığı” ). The applicant replied as follows: “I did indeed have this conversation. I have known O.K. for a long time. He is the founder of the Bir Zamanlar publishing company, which publishes books on history and cultural history ... The lobby discussed in the conversation is a woman, Lori Z., who is a member of [an ONG]”. The police officers also asked the applicant several questions about his telephone conversations with O.Y., who wished to organise an exhibition about the Gezi events in Brussels, with C.M.U., who had set up a film production company and was hoping for financial backing from the Foundation for an Open Society, and with G.T., director of the Foundation for an Open Society, who was planning to organise a campaign about the events of 1915. In this connection, the applicant was asked about a telephone conversation which he had had with O.K. on 19 August 2013: “It appears from your telephone conversation that a large-scale event was planned to mark the centenary of the so-called Armenian genocide of 1915, and that in order to mitigate the backlash it was decided to present this event as a way of boosting tourist revenue. During this conversation, why did you make comments about the strength of the demonstrations about the so-called Armenian genocide which would be organised in our country?” The applicant: I did indeed have this conversation. It was a conversation that I had with O.K. about the participation of American citizens of Armenian origin in the 2015 commemorations ... O.K. made a joke and said that this group’s arrival would provide an occasion to boost tourist revenue and have the genocide recognised. However, it is clear from this conversation that the aim of the visit was not to obtain recognition of the genocide from the Turkish Government, but to [enable this group] to share a moment of emotion .... Furthermore, several groups composed of individuals of Armenian origin ... took part in the 2015 commemorations and there was no tension. The then Prime Minister, R.T. Erdoğan, issued a message of condolence.” The applicant was questioned about a telephone conversation he had had on 7 September 2013 with A.G., an activist and member of the Association for Human Rights, concerning allegations of breaches of the rights of Turkey’s Alevi community. The applicant was also asked about a telephone conversation he had had on 24   September 2014 with a foreign journalist concerning an academic conference on the Gezi events. It was stated that the applicant had held a telephone conversation on 25 October 2013 with an individual named I.P., with a view to using the Gezi Park events to exert political pressure on the authorities. This conversation reads as follows: “I.P.: Hello, Osman, I’m going to ask you a question. What are we going to talk about tomorrow at six o’clock? Applicant: What are we going to talk about? I.P.: Did I understand correctly? That’s why I’m doing this [I’m asking this question]. Applicant: O.K. We could talk about [the following topics]; before the local elections [local elections were held in Turkey on 30 March 2014], our dream is actually to see a more transparent, more participatory model of local government emerge following the Gezi events; that is, the energy that has emerged from this [the events in Gezi Park] should continue to be an element of democratic opposition or to function as a means of democratic pressure (“ demokratik muhalefet unsuru olarak veya demokratik baskı aracı olarak işlev görmeye devam etmesi ”)... Now, to realize these dreams or plans, we have thought of some things, to see what the new political equation will be or how political alliances could be formed, while also of course thinking a bit about certain aspects that are related to the objectives at the outset. In other words, if we start thinking about this, what model can best serve these objectives? What political actors could be useful for these objectives, and without focusing too much on names, are there a few things we could do? For example, [could we] support municipal council candidates who accept such and such requests? That is, how can we make progress in strengthening transparency within municipalities in an institutional way and civil society’s control over these bodies [“ belediyelerin kurumsal olarak şeffaflaşmalarına ve sivil toplumun denetimine açık olmalarına imkan verecek bir takım adımlar nasıl atılabilir ”]? After all this, we will probably achieve something [.] But we can ask ourselves the question how things will go if the AKP wins the elections again. [On the other hand,] we can also ask ourselves another question: if the CHP [the main opposition party] candidate is not sensitive to these issues, what will happen then [?] Here we will probably [address these topics]; i.e. we will see if we can achieve something around these themes. I.P.: You asked, ‘Should we invite another person?’ That’s why I’m asking this question. Applicant: Do you have someone in mind? I.P.: I have friends who were in the park collective [this must refer to one of the Gezi Park collectives]. There are even people who are part of Çarşı ’s group [a group of supporters of the Beşiktaş football team]. These are friends who organized the ‘Come in September’ meeting. They are still active in several Park collectives and are continuing their actions [it seems that the Gezi Park collectives in some districts did not disperse even after the events had ended]. I wonder if we could invite one of these people. Applicant: As you wish.” The police officers read out transcripts of telephone conversations between third parties, dated 16 September 2013, 18   September 2013, 4   October 2013 and 4 February 2014, in which the speakers had spoken of their intention to ask the applicant for money. The applicant replied that he did not know the individuals concerned and that he had not provided them with any financial support. The police officers also showed the applicant photographs taken in the course of surveillance operations against him, showing that the applicant had met: A.H.A., a member of the management board of Anadolu Kültür, on 3   August 2013; A.Z., a journalist, on 12   August 2013 (with other persons); B.F., president of an association bringing together music producers, and other persons, on 18   August 2013; and U.K., a financial adviser, on 6   September 2013. The applicant confirmed that he had indeed met those persons. The applicant was asked about meetings with representatives of foreign countries and telephone conversations with academics, journalists and NGO representatives. He was also questioned about: several incoming calls from the number “123456”; photos taken with his mobile phone during the Gezi events; the funeral of S.E., a politician of Kurdish origin; messages exchanged by him on 2   October 2017 with A.F.I., an academic and journalist, and with A.E., a journalist, with regard to the financial difficulties encountered by a daily newspaper and the possibility of obtaining financial support from European Union funds; an exchange of messages and a meeting, on 9 May 2017, with C.D., a journalist who lived in Germany and was subject to criminal proceedings in Turkey for, among other charges, divulging documents that were classified as secret (espionage) and attempting to overthrow the constitutional order; and a visit by a delegation of the EUTCC (EU Turkey Civic Commission) which included members of the European Parliament, academics and journalists [this visit had taken place between 13 and 19 February 2017]. Furthermore, he was questioned about a message in which he had stated as follows: “[o]ne might even say that it is problematical to compare DAESH [a terrorist organisation with a Salafist jihadist ideology] to the PKK and to [claim that], while DAESH’s Salafist ideology is legitimate, the nationalist and leftist ideology advocated by the PKK is illegitimate and irreligious. However, the limits of the ideas which coincide with the PKK’s political aims but do not support terrorism are much wider than in the other [Salafist ideology] (“ Halbuki, PKK’nın siyasi hedefleriyle çakışan ama terör destekçisi olmayan düşünce alanının sınırları öbüründen çok daha geniştir ”).” The applicant was also questioned about his relations with H.J.B., whom the prosecutor’s office suspected of having been one of the instigators of the attempted coup and of having stayed at Istanbul’s Büyükada Hotel on that occasion. He replied that he was acquainted with H.J.B., an academic and director of the Wilson Center in the United States, and that he had contacts with the latter’s sister, K.B., who was a professor of anthropology at the University of Columbia and wished to organise an exhibition on the theme of shared sacred sites. He also explained that he had met H.J.B. at dinner in an Istanbul restaurant on 18   July, and that they had spoken briefly. The police officers also quoted from an interview with the applicant, broadcast by Web TV on YouTube on 4 August 2015, in which he had stated: “Ultimately, although some people compare the PKK to DAESH or similar organisations, nowadays the PKK is an organisation which is capable of conducting a rational policy and this is what comes across in their negotiations ... This is a major responsibility for the Government, but in certain situations, an opposition movement, an armed opposition movement, plays an important role in determining policy ...” In reply, the applicant emphasised that he had been referring in this interview to the negotiations between the leaders of the PKK and the Government in Oslo [in the context of secret meetings which had been held in Norway at the beginning of the 2010s]. Lastly, the applicant explained that he had spoken several times with the then Prime Minister, and had worked with the director of prison services in order to improve prison conditions. He also specified that he had always supported the State institutions and that he had attempted to ensure coordination between them and the NGOs. 37.     On 1 November 2017 the public prosecutor’s office called for the applicant to be placed in pre-trial detention for “attempting to overthrow the constitutional order through force and violence” (Article   309 of the Criminal Code) and for “attempting to overthrow the Government or to prevent, through force and violence, the authorities from exercising their functions” (Article 312 of the Criminal Code). In justifying the suspicions in relation to the Gezi events, the prosecutor’s office alleged in its application for placement in detention that the applicant had led and organised the demonstrations more usually known as “the Gezi events”, which were in fact an insurrection in which all the terrorist organisations (FETÖ/PDY and the PKK, as well as the DHKPC and MLKP, two extremist left-wing armed organisations) had actively participated with the aim of overthrowing the Government and preventing it, through force and violence, from exercising its functions. With regard to the charge concerning the attempted coup, the public prosecutor’s office relied on evidence from the case file which, in its opinion, showed that the applicant had had intensive and unusual contacts with foreign nationals and especially with H.J.B., whom the prosecutor’s office suspected of having been one of the instigators of the attempted coup and of having stayed in the Büyükada Hotel on that occasion. The prosecution’s argument was based, in particular, on reports from base transceiver stations indicating that on 18   July 2016 the applicant’s mobile telephone and that of H.J.B. had emitted signals from the same station. 38.     On the same date the applicant, assisted by his two lawyers, was brought before the Istanbul 1st magistrate’s court. Before it, he denied the accusations against him. He explained that he campaigned for peace and for the protection of human rights and that, in order to achieve these aims, he had worked in collaboration with members of NGOs, intellectuals, civil servants and politicians. He added that he had always drawn public attention to the dangerous and obscure nature of the activities carried out by the Gülenist organisation [Fetullah Gülen’s network]. He repeated his statements about the intercepted telephone conversations, the photographs taken during the physical surveillance operations, the reports from the base transceiver stations and other evidence that had been included in the case file. At the close of the hearing, the magistrate ordered that the applicant be placed in pre-trial detention, on the grounds that there existed concrete evidence (“ somut deliller ”) indicating that he had been the instigator of the “Gezi events”, which were in fact an insurrection, supported by numerous terrorist organisations with the aim of overthrowing the Government; that the applicant had provided financial support to persons who had taken part in the demonstrations; and that he had been in contact, inter alia , with one of the instigators of the attempted coup, Professor H.J.B. He also referred to the existence of strong suspicions against the applicant, the nature of the offences with which he had been charged and the fact that these offences were among those listed in Article   100 § 3 of the CCP – namely, the so-called “catalogue offences”, for which a suspect’s pre-trial detention was deemed justified in the event of strong suspicion – and to the danger of absconding. He further noted that a judicial supervision measure would be insufficient at this stage and that it would not correspond to the aim pursued. 39.     On 8 November 2017 the applicant lodged an objection against the order for his pre-trial detention. In support of the objection, he argued that there was no concrete evidence that could justify a measure of pre-trial detention. In particular, he submitted that the prosecution’s argument that the Gezi events could have been orchestrated by a single individual or organisation was simply not credible. He reiterated the statements that he had made, as recorded by the police (see paragraph 36 above) and by the magistrate’s court (see paragraph 38 above). In addition, emphasising that his placement in detention had been ordered about five years after the Gezi events, he challenged the magistrate court’s argument that a judicial supervision measure would be insufficient at this stage and would not serve the aim pursued. 40.     On 13 November 2017, without commenting on any of the arguments raised by the applicant, the Istanbul 2 nd magistrate’s court dismissed an appeal lodged before it by the applicant against the decision to maintain his detention, on the grounds that the contested decision had complied with the procedure and the law. Extension of the pre-trial detention 41.     According to the Government, on 8 and 29 November, 28   December 2017, 2 January, 7 March, 8   March, 26 June, 6 August, and 9 and 3l   August 2018 the applicant submitted applications for provisional release. Those applications were examined by the competent magistrates’ courts and dismissed by decisions of 13 and 30   November 2017, 22 January, 9   March, l9   March, 9   July, 13   and 31 August 2018 respectively. The Government argued that the applicant’s requests for provisional release had been examined by the relevant courts within a maximum period of 30 days, as required by Article   3 of Emergency Legislative Decree no. 668, which had entered into