CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 septembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sB995083 { width:143.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s13BC263B { height:24.5pt } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF ULUSOY AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE ( Application no. 73062/16 and 20 others see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 September 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ulusoy and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Jovan Ilievski,   Diana Sârcu, judges, and, Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by twenty-one Turkish nationals, whose relevant details are listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Turkey; the parties’ observations; the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee; Having deliberated in private on 28 June 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The present applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants in the aftermath of the coup attempt of 15   July 2016, on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation / Parallel State Structure” (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması, hereinafter referred to as “FETÖ/PDY”), which was considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt (further information regarding the events that unfolded after the coup attempt, including the details of the state of emergency declared by the respondent Government and the ensuing notice of derogation given to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, as well as the legislative developments that followed the declaration of the state of emergency, may be found in the case of Baş v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, §§   7 ‑ 14 and §§ 109-110, 3 March 2020). All of the applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 35826/19, 36471/19, 42478/19 and 55595/19, were serving as ordinary judges or prosecutors at different types and/or levels of court at the material time. The applicant in application no. 42478/19 was a police officer, and the remaining three applicants in question were former members of the judiciary. 2.     On 16 July 2016 the Ankara chief public prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation into, inter alios , the suspected members of FETÖ/PDY within the judiciary. Subsequently, on various dates, the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors ( Hakimler ve Savcılar Yüksek Kurulu – “the HSYK”) decided to suspend thousands of judges and prosecutors – including some of the applicants – from their duties, on the grounds that there was strong suspicion that they were members of the terrorist organisation that had instigated the attempted coup (further details regarding the relevant HSYK decision may be found in Baş , ibid., §§ 15-21, and Turan and Others v.   Turkey , nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, §§ 13-15, 23 November 2021). 3.     On various dates, the applicants were arrested and placed in pre-trial detention, mainly on suspicion of membership of the FETÖ/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see Baş , cited above, §   58). The detention orders relied principally on the fact that the applicants had been suspended from their duties as judges or prosecutors on grounds of their membership of the organisation that had instigated the attempted coup. In respect of some applicants, the use of the ByLock messaging system was relied on as evidence. The challenges brought by the applicants against their detentions, including by reason of the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, were dismissed, including by the Constitutional Court (see, mutatis mutandis , Turan and Others , cited above, §§   22-27). 4.     According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of a terrorist organisation by the first instance courts, and a few were acquitted. It appears that, for the most part, the appeal proceedings are still pending. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained that there had been no specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion, within the meaning of Article   5   §   1   (c) of the Convention, that they had committed a criminal offence necessitating pre-trial detention. 7.     The Government urged the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible in respect of the applicants who had not made use of the compensatory remedy under Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the applicants who had received some compensation and whose compensation claims were still pending. They further asked the Court to declare the applications inadmissible for abuse of the right of application to the extent that the applicants had not informed the Court of the developments in their cases following the lodging of their applications. 8.     The Court notes that similar objections have already been dismissed in other cases against Turkey (see, for instance, Baş , cited above, §§   118-121, and Turan and Others , cited above, §§ 57-64), and sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35 §   3   (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 9.     The Court notes that the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention was based solely on the decisions taken by the HSYK for their suspension from office, and/or on information indicating their use of the ByLock messaging system. The Court has already found that neither of these grounds relied on by the domestic courts in ordering the applicants’ pre-trial detention was of a nature to constitute “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article 5   §   1   (c) in respect of the offence attributed to them (see, Baş , cited above, §§   170 ‑ 195, and Akgün v. Turkey , no. 19699/18, §§ 151-185, 20   July 2021, respectively). 10.     In the absence of any other information or evidence available at the time of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention that would satisfy an objective observer that they may have committed the offence attributed to them, the Court sees no reason to depart from its findings in the aforementioned cases and finds that there has been a violation of Article   5 §   1. The Court moreover considers that while the applicants were detained a short time after the coup attempt – that is, the event that prompted the declaration of the state of emergency and the notice of derogation by Turkey –, which is undoubtedly a contextual factor that should be fully taken into account in interpreting and applying Article   5 of the Convention in the present case, the measure at issue cannot be said to have been strictly required by the exigencies of the situation (see, Baş , cited above, §§   115-116 and   §§   196-201). OTHER COMPLAINTS 11.     As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5, the Court decides not to examine them, in view of its findings under Article   5 §   1 above and its considerations in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, §   98). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     The applicants requested compensation in varying amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Most of the applicants also claimed pecuniary damage, corresponding mainly to their loss of earnings resulting from their dismissal, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. 13.     The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 14.     For the reasons put forth in Turan and Others (cited above, §§   102 ‑ 107), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants a lump sum of 5,000 euros (EUR), covering non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, that they had committed an offence, admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, that they had committed an offence; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ remaining complaints under Article 5 of the Convention; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts, which are to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 September 2022, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Hasan Bakırcı   Branko Lubarda   Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Represented by Applicant’s status at the time of pre-trial detention Evidence relied on at the time of initial pre-trial detention 1. 73062/16 Ulusoy v. Türkiye 16/11/2016 Murat ULUSOY 03/06/1978   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision 2. 12183/17 M.D. v. Türkiye 11/01/2017 M.D. 21/07/1982 Cihat ÇITIR Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision 3. 28577/17 Altıntop v. Türkiye 16/01/2017 Talha ALTINTOP 03/01/1980 Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision 4. 43702/17 Can v. Türkiye 26/04/2017 Muhammed Sait CAN 05/05/1987 İrem TATLIDEDE Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision 5. 43746/17 Büyükşahin v. Türkiye 10/04/2017 Ziya BÜYÜKŞAHİN 15/02/1983 Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT Ordinary judge or public prosecutor ByLock messaging system 6. 43953/17 Tekkoyun v.   Türkiye 28/04/2017 Ramazan TEKKOYUN 11/04/1989 İbrahim KOCAOĞUL Ordinary judge or public prosecutor ByLock messaging system 7. 63736/17 Sarpkaya v. Türkiye 13/06/2017 Fatih SARPKAYA 10/05/1986   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision 8. 77593/17 Aslan v. Türkiye 16/02/2018 Yüceler ASLAN 22/04/1975   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor ByLock messaging system 9. 84065/17 Çakmak v. Türkiye 13/11/2017 İrfan ÇAKMAK 19/01/1981 Hüseyin AYGÜN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision 10. 12531/18 Akarsu v. Türkiye 08/03/2018 Zafer AKARSU 20/05/1979 Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision 11. 16949/18 Bekci v. Türkiye 26/03/2018 Osman BEKCİ 05/07/1986   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision 12. 17137/18 Özdemir v.   Türkiye 19/03/2018 Mahmut ÖZDEMİR 10/05/1983 Hüseyin AYGÜN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision 13. 24982/19 Pekgüzel v. Türkiye 25/04/2019 Mehmet Ali PEKGÜZEL 05/04/1966 Kübra GÜLAÇTI Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision 14. 35826/19 Kösem v. Türkiye 31/05/2019 Ramazan KÖSEM 18/04/1989 Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ Former judge ByLock messaging system 15. 36471/19 Doğan v. Türkiye 27/06/2019 Abdulbaki DOĞAN 05/12/1980   Former public prosecutor ByLock messaging system 16. 38911/19 Tekin v. Türkiye 10/07/2019 Harun TEKİN 01/01/1977 İrem TATLIDEDE Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision 17. 40630/19 Şimşek v. Türkiye 22/07/2019 Ünzüle ŞİMŞEK 25/10/1970 Zeki ŞİMŞEK Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision 18. 42478/19 Tavan v. Türkiye 31/07/2019 Ayhan TAVAN 15/03/1974 Mehmet ÖNCÜ Police officer ByLock messaging system 19. 55595/19 Yiğitbilek v. Türkiye 27/09/2019 Uğur YİĞİTBİLEK 23/03/1970 Betül Saadet YİĞİTBİLEK YILDIZ Former public prosecutor ByLock messaging system 20. 57068/19 Gültekin v. Türkiye 10/10/2019 Abdulkadir GÜLTEKİN 20/03/1971   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision 21. 58672/19 Özer v. Türkiye 30/10/2019 Sefer ÖZER 25/08/1981 Ceren ATALAY Ordinary judge or public prosecutor HSYK decision