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 } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1AE6489F { width:14.15pt; display:inline-block } .s31408353 { font-family:Arial; color:#ff33cc } .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 } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sD7BCAED3 { width:144.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF GELEŞ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Application no. 75881/16 and 69 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 Geleş and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Pauliine Koskelo, President,   Gilberto Felici,   Saadet Yüksel, 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 seventy 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 Türkiye; 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 were serving as ordinary judges or prosecutors at different types and/or levels of court, subject to Law no.   2802 on judges and prosecutors (“Law no. 2802”) (see Baş , cited above, §§ 66-67), at the material time. 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, in accordance with the provisions of the ordinary law, on the ground that there had been a case of discovery in flagrante delicto falling within the jurisdiction of the assize courts (further information regarding the orders issued by the chief public prosecutor’s office within the context of that investigation, as well as the ensuing suspensions and dismissals of judges and prosecutors suspected of being members of FETÖ/PDY, may be found in Baş , cited above, §§ 9-10 and 15-21). 3.     Following their arrest and detention in police custody on the orders of the regional and provincial prosecutors’ offices, the applicants were placed in pre-trial detention on various dates, mainly on suspicion of membership of the FETÖ/PDY organisation, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code ( see Baş , cited above, §   58 ). The pre-trial detention decisions were issued by the magistrates’ courts located at the respective places of the applicants’ arrest. In the majority of the decisions, it was noted specifically that the criminal investigation was governed by the ordinary rules, given that the offence of which the suspects were accused, namely membership of an armed terrorist organisation, was a “continuing offence” and that there was a case of discovery in flagrante delicto governed by the relevant provisions of domestic law (see Baş , cited above, § 67). 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. 5.     In the meantime, the applicants lodged individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of, inter alia , the alleged violation of their right to liberty and security on various accounts, including the alleged unlawfulness of their detention by reason of the disregard of the procedural safeguards afforded   to members of the judiciary in domestic law, all of which were declared inadmissible (see Turan and Others v. Turkey , nos.   75805/16 and 426   others, §§   26-27, 23   November 2021). THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.     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 7.     The applicants complained that they had been placed in pre-trial detention in breach of the domestic laws governing the arrest and pre-trial detention of the members of the judiciary and disputed that there had been a case of discovery in flagrante delicto for the purposes of section 94 of Law   no.   2802. All applications except for applications nos. 51506/19 and 51588/19 8.     The Government invited the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible for the reasons that they had raised in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, § 55). The Court notes that the Government’s objections have   already been dismissed in the case of 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, insofar as it concerns all applications except for applications nos. 51506/19 and 51588/19, 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 further considers, having regard to its findings in the cases of Baş and Turan and Others (both cited above, §§ 143-158 and §§   79-92, respectively), that the pre-trial detention of the applicants had not taken place in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law within the meaning of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention and that, therefore, there has been a violation of Article   5 § 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the initial pre-trial detention of the applicants in question. Moreover, 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 Türkiye   –, 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 §§   159-162, and Turan and Others , cited above, § 91). Applications nos. 51506/19 and 51588/19 10.     The Court notes that the applicants who have lodged applications nos.   51506/19 and 51588/19, namely Mr Şimşek and Mr Yorulmaz, respectively (noted as the 69th and the 70th applicants in the appended list), are the same individuals who have lodged applications nos. 51526/17 and 20018/18, respectively (noted as the 24th and the 64th applicants in the appended list). 11.     Having regard to the finding of a violation of Article 5 § 1 above in respect of the complaint brought by Mr Şimsek and Mr Yorulmaz regarding the unlawfulness of their pre-trial detention within the scope of applications nos.   51526/17 and 20018/18 (see paragraph 9 above), the Court considers the same complaint introduced by those two applicants under applications nos.   51506/19 and 51588/19 to be inadmissible in terms of Article   35   §   2   (b) of the Convention for being substantially the same as that examined in applications nos.   51526/17 and 20018/18. This part of the applications nos.   51506/19 and 51588/19 must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article   35   §   4. OTHER COMPLAINTS 12.     As regards the applicants’ 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 13.     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. 14.     The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 15.     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. Insofar as the applicants Mr Şimşek and Mr   Yorulmaz are concerned, the lump sum award is made only in respect of applications nos.   51526/17 and 20018/18, in the light of the Court’s findings in paragraphs 10 and 11 above. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaint under Article   5   §   1 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention admissible in respect of all applications, except for applications nos.   51506/19 and   51588/19; Declares the complaint under Article   5   §   1 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention inadmissible in respect of applications nos. 51506/19 and   51588/19; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 §   1 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of the initial pre-trial detention of the applicants, except in respect of applications nos. 51506/19 and   51588/19; 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, except in relation to applications nos. 51506/19 and 51588/19, 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’ claims 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   Pauliine Koskelo   Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Represented by 1. 75881/16 Geleş v. Türkiye 22/11/2016 Hasan GELEŞ 13/10/1975 Tufan YILMAZ 2. 1101/17 Bozoğlu v. Türkiye 01/12/2016 Süleyman BOZOĞLU 04/06/1977 İsa ÖZBİLEN 3. 12467/17 Aşılar v. Türkiye 20/01/2017 Behçet AŞILAR 03/04/1974 Cihat ÇITIR 4. 14638/17 Korkmaz v.   Türkiye 02/02/2017 Gökhan KORKMAZ 07/02/1982 Coşkun TAŞKIN 5. 14652/17 Taşkın v. Türkiye 02/02/2017 Sinan TAŞKIN 10/04/1968 Coşkun TAŞKIN 6. 14669/17 Bozkurt v. Türkiye 23/01/2017 Özcan BOZKURT 11/11/1983 Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 7. 14967/17 Kalkan v. Türkiye 26/01/2017 Erkan KALKAN 01/05/1977 Sefanur BOZGÖZ 8. 15051/17 Şenli v. Türkiye 26/01/2017 Eren ŞENLİ 10/03/1978 Mehmet ÖNCÜ 9. 20092/17 Erdoğan v. Türkiye 23/02/2017 İlyas ERDOĞAN 01/01/1983   10. 30652/17 Akbilek v. Türkiye 17/02/2017 Nevzat AKBİLEK 10/05/1973 İrem TATLIDEDE 11. 39578/17 Kaya v. Türkiye 17/03/2017 Vedat KAYA 03/02/1977 Ömer Faruk ERGÜN 12. 40067/17 Rusum v. Türkiye 05/05/2017 Emin RUSUM 01/01/1962 Merve Elif GÜRACAR 13. 40704/17 Bayraktar v.   Türkiye 28/03/2017 Aytekin BAYRAKTAR 23/03/1984 Hatice AVCI BAYRAKTAR 14. 41477/17 Apaçık v. Türkiye 24/04/2017 Ramazan APAÇIK 18/05/1968 Rukiye COŞGUN 15. 41479/17 Ünal v. Türkiye 18/05/2017 Emrah ÜNAL 20/03/1983   16. 41516/17 Zengin v. Türkiye 11/04/2017 Sinan ZENGİN 03/11/1977 Gülşen ZENGİN 17. 41619/17 Gültekin v. Türkiye 05/05/2017 Mehmet İkbal GÜLTEKİN 27/01/1980   18. 41823/17 Güleç v. Türkiye 28/03/2017 Ramazan GÜLEÇ 05/10/1974   19. 42190/17 Kılıç v. Türkiye 28/04/2017 Özkan KILIÇ 22/01/1978 Adem AKYÜREK 20. 42848/17 Şevik v. Türkiye 04/04/2017 Özcan ŞEVİK 21/12/1980 Zehra KILIÇ 21. 43763/17 Kul v. Türkiye 04/05/2017 Hamza KUL 17/09/1977 Murat YILMAZ 22. 44803/17 Gökkaya v. Türkiye 03/05/2017 Ömer GÖKKAYA 15/10/1979 Recep ÇINAR 23. 48765/17 Parıltı v. Türkiye 05/05/2017 Yılmaz PARILTI 10/09/1969 Mustafa AÇICI 24. 51526/17 Şimşek v. Türkiye 22/03/2017 Engin ŞİMŞEK 14/11/1978 Selma AKKOYUNLU KILINÇ 25. 58445/17 Tekintaş v. Türkiye 30/06/2017 Mücahit TEKİNTAŞ 25/08/1972 İbrahim TOKTAMIŞ 26. 58512/17 Togay v. Türkiye 07/02/2017 Mehmet TOGAY 11/03/1966 Kadir Soner KILINÇ 27. 58551/17 Yüzlü v. Türkiye 07/07/2017 Yavuz YÜZLÜ 29/11/1977   28. 59691/17 Bakırcı v. Türkiye 13/02/2017 Kadir BAKIRCI 01/11/1967 Coşkun TAŞKIN 29. 60284/17 Öztürk v. Türkiye 23/06/2017 Bilgin ÖZTÜRK 17/11/1978   30. 60335/17 Şahin v. Türkiye 05/07/2017 Mehmet ŞAHİN 13/09/1975 Furkan YILDIRIM 31. 60374/17 Akın v. Türkiye 10/07/2017 Mehmet AKIN 05/01/1985 Janset ATİLA 32. 60382/17 Dere v. Türkiye 04/07/2017 Ahmet DERE 27/04/1980 Vedat ÇAPRAZ 33. 62020/17 Kardeşler v.   Türkiye 02/05/2017 Erdoğan KARDEŞLER 01/08/1982   34. 62610/17 Akpınar v. Türkiye 25/01/2017 Ali AKPINAR 10/04/1977 Mehmet ÖNCÜ 35. 62737/17 Uz v. Türkiye 01/02/2017 Alpaslan UZ 09/12/1975 İrem TATLIDEDE 36. 62750/17 Gürgen v. Türkiye 14/06/2017 Fatih GÜRGEN 26/08/1978 Rukiye COŞGUN 37. 62770/17 Doğan v. Türkiye 02/05/2017 Salih DOĞAN 01/01/1988   38. 62917/17 Duran v. Türkiye 03/05/2017 Bekir DURAN 10/06/1979 Recep ÇINAR 39. 63724/17 Karadeniz v.   Türkiye 14/04/2017 Ender KARADENİZ 15/09/1972   40. 63769/17 Öztürk v. Türkiye 13/06/2017 Selim ÖZTÜRK 21/08/1977 Şefik KARAKIŞ 41. 63771/17 Ekinci v. Türkiye 18/01/2017 Neslihan EKİNCİ 30/08/1971 Semra İŞLER ALBAYRAK 42. 63778/17 Duman v. Türkiye 29/05/2017 Mehmet DUMAN 01/01/1974 Fatih DÖNMEZ 43. 63802/17 Atıcı v. Türkiye 29/05/2017 Seyfettin ATICI 02/05/1972 Fatih DÖNMEZ 44. 63973/17 Demir v. Türkiye 25/04/2017 Ahmet Nebi DEMİR 19/08/1988 Hülya POLAT 45. 66686/17 Kıran v. Türkiye 23/01/2017 Mehmet KIRAN 06/02/1973 İrem TATLIDEDE 46. 66689/17 M.T. v. Türkiye 23/05/2017 M.T. 01/01/1980 Abdullah BİRDİR 47. 69580/17 Uyar v. Türkiye 21/07/2017 Celal UYAR 23/01/1980 Türker İKİBAŞ 48. 70538/17 Ünüvar v. Türkiye 08/08/2017 Tamer ÜNÜVAR 01/01/1974 Fatih DÖNMEZ 49. 71995/17 Yurtdakal v.   Türkiye 19/04/2017 Turgay YURTDAKAL 30/09/1974 Emre AKARYILDIZ 50. 72339/17 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 25/07/2017 Ahmet Serdar YILMAZ 11/12/1985 Mehmet ÖNCÜ 51. 74763/17 Albayrak v.   Türkiye 03/10/2017 Süleyman ALBAYRAK 20/06/1980 Sibel İSA 52. 79632/17 Tekkoyun v.   Türkiye 19/10/2017 Muhammet TEKKOYUN 27/10/1974 İbrahim KOCAOĞUL 53. 82521/17 Pazar v. Türkiye 13/06/2017 Beytullah PAZAR 18/02/1975 Yusuf RENKLİ 54. 6504/18 Avcı v. Türkiye 16/01/2018 Ahmet AVCI 05/02/1977 Mehmet ÖNCÜ 55. 8021/18 Can v. Türkiye 02/02/2018 Hasan CAN 20/10/1970 Mehmet Fatih İÇER 56. 9589/18 Akın v. Türkiye 13/02/2018 Serhat AKIN 01/11/1984 Fatma ALBAYRAK 57. 12596/18 Genç v. Türkiye 09/02/2018 Hayrettin GENÇ 01/09/1979 Orhan ŞAHNA 58. 12850/18 Belge v. Türkiye 05/03/2018 Fatih BELGE 10/09/1980 İhsan MAKAS 59. 15312/18 Uzun v. Türkiye 16/03/2018 Nuh UZUN 22/09/1988 Ramazan DANIŞMAN 60. 15892/18 Ercan v. Türkiye 09/03/2018 İhsan ERCAN 06/03/1985 Nilgün GÜRCAN 61. 16812/18 Özdemir v. Türkiye 27/03/2018 Şaban ÖZDEMİR 17/08/1976   62. 17552/18 Kaya v. Türkiye 19/02/2018 Mehmet KAYA 03/09/1986 Ahmet Can DEMİRCİ 63. 18059/18 Durak v. Türkiye 06/04/2018 Selami DURAK 10/09/1971 Basri GÜNDÜZ 64. 20018/18 Yorulmaz v.   Türkiye 02/03/2018 Özgür YORULMAZ 10/07/1971   65. 22181/18 Ketenoğlu v.   Türkiye 04/05/2018 Feyyaz KETENOĞLU 15/04/1987 Menekşe Merve TEKTEN 66. 25239/18 İlci v. Türkiye 18/05/2018 Şükrü İLCİ 19/06/1976 Ahmet Can DEMİRCİ 67. 31224/18 Gül v. Türkiye 22/06/2018 Cevat GÜL 01/09/1970 Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 68. 47422/18 Sezgin v. Türkiye 21/09/2018 İsmail SEZGİN 14/04/1974   69. 51506/19 Şimşek v. Türkiye 10/05/2019 Engin ŞİMŞEK 14/11/1978 Selma AKKOYUNLU KILINÇ 70. 51588/19 Yorulmaz v.   Türkiye 16/04/2019 Özgür YORULMAZ 10/07/1971