CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; 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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CC3BE06 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sE2D3E960 { margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s436F61AC { width:13.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7B868B6A { width:9.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sD95767A9 { width:33.22pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s436D3C2F { width:146.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } SECOND SECTION CASE OF ABO v. TÜRKİYE (Application no. 3772/17)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Fair hearing • Unfair proceedings concerning applicant’s application for reopening of criminal proceedings following Court’s finding of violation of Art   6 §§   1 and   3 (c) in previous case brought by him due to lack of legal assistance available while in police custody • Jurisdiction ratione materiae • Alleged unfairness of proceedings concerning reopening application constituting a “new issue” undecided by Court’s previous judgment • Art   6 applicable under its criminal limb to proceedings concerning reopening application • Trial court’s decision dismissing reopening application based on automatic and insufficient reasoning and Constitutional Court’s failure to remedy that shortcoming Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Reasonable time • Excessive length of proceedings concerning the reopening application based on Court’s finding of a violation and with the applicant being in detention • Trial court’s failure to show the required due diligence   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 13 November 2025 FINAL   23/03/2026   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Abo v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Jovan Ilievski,   Péter Paczolay,   Stéphane Pisani,   Juha Lavapuro,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   3772/17) 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 a Turkish national, Mr   Davut Abo (“the applicant”), on 5 December 2016; the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the alleged unfairness and excessive length of proceedings and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 7 October 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the alleged unfairness of proceedings in which the domestic courts dismissed an application by the applicant for the reopening of criminal proceedings, which was based on the Court’s judgment finding a violation in respect of him (see Davut Abo v. Turkey [Committee], no.   22493/07, 26   November 2013), and the alleged excessive length of those proceedings. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1975 and is serving a prison sentence in Diyarbakır. The applicant was represented by Ms E. Akgül, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.         CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT 5.     On 1 October 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an armed terrorist organisation, namely the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). 6.     On 4 October 2000 the applicant gave a statement to the police in the absence of a lawyer, stating that he and four other people had decided to hold an unauthorised demonstration in order to protest against the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan in 1998, and to carry out an armed attack on the police forces involved. A couple of days after that decision, S.K. had invited several individuals to his office, including the applicant, A.I., H. and N.G. He had given a Kalashnikov rifle to A.I., and a pistol to both H. and N.G. The applicant went on to state that they had then attended an unauthorised meeting organised by the PKK in the Küçükkırım district of Ceyhan, Adana (a city in the south of Türkiye), and had later positioned themselves on the roof of a building from where A.I., H. and N.G. had shot at the police officers while the applicant and S.K. had acted as lookouts. 7.     On 5 October 2000 the applicant gave a statement to the Beytüşşebap public prosecutor, in the absence of a lawyer, and maintained the statement he had made to the police. On the same day, the applicant was questioned by the investigating judge in the absence of a lawyer, and confirmed the statements that he had made to the police and the public prosecutor, adding that he had done so in a sincere manner and out of remorse. The applicant further stated that he was relying on the State’s justice system and expressed his wish to benefit from Law no. 3419 on repentance ( Pişmanlık Yasası ). 8.     On 22 December 2000 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant, under Article   125 of the Criminal Code as then in force, with undermining the unity of the State and seeking to remove part of the national territory from the State’s control. 9.     At a hearing held on 22 February 2001 the applicant gave evidence in person. He denied all the accusations against him and retracted his statements given to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge. He stated that he had been threatened by the police while being taken to both the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, and that he had thought that he was being brought before police officers when he had been taken to the offices of the prosecutor and the judge. He complained that he had been subjected to torture in police custody. During the hearing, the applicant read out his written submissions. 10.     On 9 November 2006 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to aggravated life imprisonment. 11.     On 10 May 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the above-mentioned judgment.       THE COURT’S JUDGMENT IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANT 12.     On 15 May 2007 the applicant lodged an application with the Court and complained, inter alia , under Article   6 of the Convention that he had not had a fair trial, arguing that he had been denied access to a lawyer while in police custody and a trial within a reasonable time. The applicant further complained of a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that he had been tortured while in police custody and that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his ill-treatment complaint. 13 .     By a judgment dated 26 November 2013, a Committee of the Court, consisting of three judges, found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, and a further violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, on account of the lack of legal assistance available to him while in police custody. Under Article   41 of the Convention, the Court indicated that the most appropriate form of redress would be the retrial of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Article   6   §§   1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, should he so request, and awarded him 3,900   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court declared the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded on account of his failure to substantiate his complaint with appropriate evidence and to lay the basis of an arguable claim that he had been ill-treated in police custody.     PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE APPLICANT’S APPLICATION TO HAVE THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM REOPENED 14 .     On 7 April 2014 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an application for the reopening of the proceedings against him with the Diyarbakır Fourth Assize Court (“the trial court”), which had special jurisdiction to hear cases relating to the aggravated crimes specified in Article 250 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as in force at the material time. The application was based on the Court’s judgment in respect of the applicant in Davut Abo (cited above), in which the Court had found a violation of Article   6   §   3   (c) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, on account of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant while in police custody, and the lawyer indicated that the judgment had become final on 26 November 2013. 15 .     On 15 May 2014 the trial court asked the Ministry of Justice to confirm whether the Court’s judgment had become final, and if so, on which date. 16.     In her written submissions dated 4 November 2014, the applicant’s lawyer asked the trial court whether it had ruled on the application for the reopening of the proceedings, and if it had not, urged the court to do so given the long period of time that had passed since the application had been lodged. 17.     On 5 November 2014 the trial court sent another letter to the Ministry of Justice, reiterating its request dated 15 May 2014. 18.     By a letter dated 27 November 2014, the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice informed the trial court that the Court’s judgment had become final on the date of its delivery, and described what steps needed to be taken to find the Court’s judgments in the HUDOC database. The letter further stated that the trial court had already been notified of the judgment on 3   April 2014, as the court which had conducted the trial in that case. 19 .     On 18 February 2015 the trial court found, without holding a hearing, that the application for the reopening of criminal proceedings was admissible, holding that it had been lodged by the accused within the statutory one-year period prescribed by domestic law, and based on a judgment of the Court in which a violation had been found. The trial court decided to send the application in question to the public prosecutor, asking him to submit his observations within seven days. 20.     In his written observations dated 17 March 2015, the public prosecutor invited the trial court to find the application admissible, taking the view that it complied with the conditions laid down in Article   311   §   1   (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 21.     On 15 April 2015 the trial court, applying Article   319 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (admissibility - notification to the parties for submissions), granted seven days to the public prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer to file observations and adduce evidence. It stated that, once these had been submitted, it would then rule on the application for reopening under Article   321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (merits - dismissal for lack of merit or acceptance of the application). 22.     In his written submissions dated 21 April 2015, the public prosecutor asked the trial court to grant the application for the reopening of criminal proceedings, taking the view that it fulfilled the conditions enumerated under Article   311   §   1 (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the public prosecutor submitted that the execution of the applicant’s sentence should be maintained, because the Court’s finding of a violation concerned only shortcomings of a procedural nature, and not a substantive aspect of the case. 23.     In her written submissions dated 4 May 2015, the applicant’s lawyer invited the trial court to grant the application and to conduct the trial de ‑ novo by holding hearings and hearing evidence from several new witnesses whose testimony would have a substantial bearing on the trial. In that regard, the lawyer asked the court to hear M.T. and M.A., who would be able to testify that the applicant had been ill-treated while in police custody, resulting in his having to sign statements in the absence of a lawyer. Moreover, the lawyer asked the trial court to enquire about a police officer whose testimony – specifically, his false statement that the applicant had taken part in the incident in Adana – had played a significant role in the applicant’s conviction. On that basis, the lawyer urged the trial court to examine the merits of the case by holding hearings and conducting a thorough assessment. Accordingly, the lawyer asked for the release of the applicant, who had been in prison for fifteen years. 24 .     On 8 May 2015 the trial court dismissed the application for the reopening of proceedings pursuant to Article 321 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for lack of merit. In its two-and-a-half-page decision, the court first summarised the applicant’s statements to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge and at the trial, then the outcome of the ensuing trial, his application to the Court and the Court’s judgment, and stated: “[W]hen the content of the Court’s judgment finding a violation is assessed, it can be seen that the Court rejected the convicted person’s allegations that he had been ill ‑ treated or subjected to torture while in police custody, as well as those concerning the use of allegedly unlawful evidence. The following decision to dismiss the application for the reopening of criminal proceedings has therefore been made, since it is not possible to remedy the issues that gave rise to a violation by way of a retrial and since it has been established that those issues did not have an impact on the merits of the previous conviction ...” 25.     On 26 May 2015 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an objection against the trial court’s decision, arguing that it contravened the Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Convention and the general principles of law for the following reasons. Firstly, the lawyer submitted that the applicant’s conviction under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code had rested on the statements he had made to the police in the absence of a lawyer, which was the basis on which the Court had found a violation of Article   6 in respect of him. In that connection, the lawyer pointed out that the Court had relied on the fact that the domestic courts had made use of the applicant’s statements to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, which had been taken in the absence of a lawyer. Moreover, the Court had indicated that the retrial of the applicant would be the most appropriate way of redressing the violation found. However, the trial court had denied the applicant exactly that by dismissing the application for reopening of the proceedings without assessing any of the requests the applicant’s lawyer had made in her written submissions dated 4   May 2015. 26 .     On 27 October 2015 the trial court examined and dismissed the applicant’s objection of 26 May 2015, holding that it was not valid. 27.     On 2 November 2015 the Diyarbakır Fifth Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objection, holding that the trial court’s decision was in line with the law and procedure and that it did not contain any inaccuracies.    INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 28.     On 18 December 2015, the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, complaining, among other things, of the alleged unfairness of the proceedings that had led to the dismissal of the application for the reopening of proceedings, based on the grounds raised before the Diyarbakır Assize Courts. 29 .     On 9 June 2016 the Constitutional Court declared the application inadmissible. As regards the alleged unfairness of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s application for reopening, the Constitutional Court first held that applicants could lodge individual applications concerning the alleged violations of their rights which had taken place in proceedings conducted under Article 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (grounds for reopening criminal proceedings). The Constitutional Court further observed that having received his application, the trial court had granted him time to submit his observations and adduce evidence. Subsequently, the trial court had refused the application on the grounds that the Court’s finding of a violation in respect of the applicant could not be remedied by a retrial and that the violation had not affected the merits of his conviction. In the Constitutional Court’s view, the trial court had done so after assessing the previous case file concerning the applicant’s conviction, the Court’s judgment and the applicant’s allegations in their entirety. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, holding that the domestic courts’ judgments had not contained any explicit and manifest arbitrariness and that the applicant’s allegations had been of a fourth-instance nature. 30 .     As regards the applicant’s complaint concerning the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing when examining his application for reopening, the Constitutional Court first reiterated that one of the central pillars of the right to a fair trial was the fundamental principle that proceedings were to be conducted by holding a hearing open to the public. The right to a fair trial would not be violated in cases where a first-instance court had held hearings before delivering its decision, even if no hearing had been held at the appeal stage ( kanun yolu incelemesi ). In the Constitutional Court’s view, the law regulated the conditions under which the reopening of proceedings, which had the nature of an extraordinary legal remedy, could be granted and made it clear that such applications would be refused, without a hearing being held, if they were devoid of merit. Carrying out an assessment not relating to the merits of the dispute, without holding a hearing, did not violate the right to a fair trial. Consequently, the Constitutional Court found that the allegations made by the applicant did not entail a violation. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE         Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no.   5271, which entered into force on 1 June 2005) 31.     Article 311 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entitled “Grounds for reopening criminal proceedings ( yargılamanın yenilenmesi ) for the benefit of convicted persons”, provides as follows: “Criminal proceedings terminated by a final judgment shall be re-examined by way of reopening the proceedings for the benefit of convicted persons if: ... (f)     the European Court of Human Rights finds a violation of a right protected by the Convention and the Protocols thereto and establishes that the criminal conviction was based on that violation. In such a case, an application for the reopening of proceedings may be made within one year of the date of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights becoming final. ...” 32.     Article 312 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entitled “Postponement or stay of execution [of sentence]”, provides as follows: “(1) An application for the reopening of proceedings shall have no effect on the execution of a [previously imposed] sentence. However, the court may suspend or stay the execution [of the sentence].” 33.     Article 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entitled “Decision and authority [competence to rule] on the admissibility or otherwise of an application to reopen the proceedings”, provides as follows: “(1) An application for the reopening of [criminal] proceedings shall be made to the court which gave the [previous] judgment. That court shall rule on the admissibility of the application. (2) Where the Court of Cassation [sitting as a court of first instance] has given judgment in the circumstances referred to in Article 303, the application shall be lodged with the court that gave the [previous] judgment. (3) A decision as to whether an application for the reopening of proceedings is admissible or not shall be given without holding a hearing.” 34.     Article 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entitled “Grounds for [finding] an application to reopen proceedings inadmissible and actions to be carried out where such an application is accepted”, provided as follows: “(1) Where an application for the reopening [of criminal proceedings] has not been made in the manner provided for by law or no grounds requiring the reopening of the proceedings have been shown or no supporting evidence has been adduced, the application shall be dismissed as being inadmissible. (2) Otherwise, the application for the reopening [of criminal proceedings] shall be notified to the public prosecutor and the relevant party with an invitation to submit their views, if any, within seven days. (3) Decisions given pursuant to this provision may be objected against.” 35.     Article 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entitled “Collection of evidence”, provides as follows: “(1) If the court finds an application for the reopening of criminal proceedings admissible, it may delegate the collection of evidence to one of its judges or to another court on commission, or it may carry out these actions itself. (2) The provisions concerning investigations shall be applied to the collection of evidence by the court or delegated judge or on commission. (3) After the collection of evidence is completed, the public prosecutor and the person convicted in the previous judgment shall be asked to submit, within seven days, their conclusions or observations.” 36.     Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entitled “Dismissal of an application for the reopening of [proceedings] for lack of merit, or acceptance [thereof]”, provides as follows: “(1) If the claims underpinning an application for the reopening of proceedings have not been sufficiently verified or, in the cases enumerated in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 311 or sub-paragraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 314, it appears from the state of the case that the [grounds put forward would] have no effect whatsoever on the judgment, the application for the reopening of the [criminal] proceedings shall be dismissed, without holding a hearing, for lack of merit. (2) Otherwise, the court shall order the reopening of the proceedings and hold a hearing. (3) An objection may be lodged against decisions made pursuant to this provision.” 37.     Article 323 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entitled “Judgment to be given following a rehearing”, provides: “(1) [Following] the rehearing ... the court shall either uphold the previous judgment or quash it and give a fresh judgment. (2) If the application for the reopening of the proceedings was lodged for the benefit of the convicted person, the new judgment ... shall not impose a heavier sentence than the sentence given in the previous judgment. (3) In the event that an acquittal or a decision not to impose a sentence ( ceza verilmesine yer olmadığı kararı ) is delivered following the reopening of criminal proceedings, then, in accordance with Articles 141-144 of this Code, the person in question shall be compensated for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that he or she has sustained as a result of the partial or full execution of the earlier judgment on conviction.”       Former Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no.   1412, which entered into force on 20 August 1929) 38.     The relevant provisions of the former Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 1412), namely Articles 135, 136 and 138, as then in force, provided that any person suspected or accused of a criminal offence had a right of access to a lawyer from the moment he or she was taken into police custody. In accordance with section 31 of Law no. 3842 of 18 November 1992, which amended the legislation on criminal procedure, the above ‑ mentioned provisions were not applicable to persons accused of offences falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts. On 15   July 2003, by virtue of Law no. 4928, the restriction on an accused’s right of access to a lawyer in proceedings before the State Security Courts was lifted (see Salduz v.   Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 27-29, ECHR 2008).     The Constitutional Court’s case-law – as submitted by the Government – on the compatibility with Article 6 of the Convention of the domestic courts’ refusal of applications for the reopening of criminal proceedings based on the Court’s finding of a violation of that provision 39.     The Government submitted five Constitutional Court judgments concerning the fairness of proceedings, in which applications for the reopening of criminal proceedings based on the Court’s finding of a violation of Article 6 had been decided. 40.     In its Lokman Sapan judgment of 21 November 2013 (application no.   2013/723), the Constitutional Court examined the alleged unfairness of proceedings in which the domestic courts had dismissed the applicant’s application for reopening of criminal proceedings in accordance with Article   321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The convicted person’s application was based on the Court’s judgment in Sapan v. Turkey ([Committee], no.   17252/09, 20 September 2011), in which a violation of, inter alia , Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention had been found on account of the systemic restriction imposed on his right of access to a lawyer while in police custody. The domestic court dismissed the application for reopening, holding that the procedural shortcoming in question could not be remedied by a retrial, that the conviction had not been based solely on the statements made in the absence of a lawyer and that he had been assisted by a lawyer at the trial stage. The Constitutional Court held that proceedings concerning applications for the reopening of criminal cases fell under Article 36 of the Constitution (the provision corresponding to Article 6 of the Convention) and, therefore, did not declare the application inadmissible. Instead, it examined the merits of the applicant’s complaints that, among other things, the domestic court had refused his request without giving any reasons and without holding a hearing, and declared them inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, finding that there had clearly been no violation of Article   36 of the Constitution. 41 .     In its Laleş Çeliker judgment of 21 April 2016 (application no.   2013/8413), the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, holding that the domestic courts’ interpretation of Article   311   §   1   (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in dismissing her application for the reopening of criminal proceedings had been manifestly unreasonable. In that case, the applicant’s request was based on the Court’s judgment in Çeliker v. Turkey (no. 75573/01, §   21-22, 2   October 2007), in which a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been found owing to a breach of her right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court which had tried and convicted her. In refusing the applicant’s application for reopening, the Diyarbakır Fifth Assize Court had found that the conditions in Article 311 § 1 (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been met, holding that the issue forming the basis of the Court’s finding of a violation had not been a ground on which her conviction had been based. The Constitutional Court observed that most of the trial had been conducted by a court in which a military judge had been sitting, and found that the Diyarbakır Court had failed to assess the question whether the “genuine” basis of the conviction had been negatively impacted by the fact that the trial had been conducted by a court which lacked independence and impartiality, which were the prerequisites of other procedural safeguards guaranteed by the right to a fair trial. 42.     In its Abdullah Altun judgment of 17 July 2018 (application no.   2014/2894), the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article   36 of the Constitution in relation to proceedings in which the applicant’s application for reopening of criminal proceedings on the basis of the Court’s finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in Abdullah Altun v.   Turkey (no.   66354/01, §§   20-22, 19 October 2006), owing to the breach of his right to be tried by an independent and impartial court on account of the presence of a military judge in the composition of the court which had convicted him, had been dismissed. The Diyarbakır Sixth Assize Court held that the conditions in Article 311 § 1 (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been met, because the violation had not formed the basis of the conviction, had been a procedural one and could not be remedied by a retrial. According to the Constitutional Court, the violation found by the European Court of Human Rights could only be remedied by means of a trial conducted by a court which did not include a military judge in its composition, and the presence of a military judge was sufficient to hold that the State Security Court which had convicted him had lacked independence and impartiality, regardless of the outcome of the trial. In any event, while the safety of the conviction had been prejudiced by the violation, the domestic courts’ interpretation of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been not only inconsistent with the Court’s judgment, but it had also fallen short of the level of care required by Article   36 of the Constitution. 43.     In its Cahit Tamur ve diğerleri judgment of 24 February 2021 (application no.   2020/33709), the Constitutional Court examined the fairness of proceedings in which the domestic courts had dismissed the application for the reopening of criminal proceedings on the grounds that it did not meet the criteria set out in Article 311 § 1 (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The convicted persons’ application was based on the Court’s judgment in Yaşar and Others v. Turkey ([Committee], no.   1236/09, 28   November 2017), in which a violation of, inter alia , Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention had been found on account of the systemic restriction imposed on their right of access to a lawyer while in police custody. The Constitutional Court found that the evidence given by the applicants in the absence of a lawyer had been decisive in their conviction, meaning that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the applicants had affected the safety of their conviction. In the Constitutional Court’s view, the violation found could thus only be redressed by excluding the evidence given without a lawyer being present. On that basis, the Constitutional Court found that the decision of the domestic courts had not been in accordance with the violation judgment, nor had it contained any assessment to the extent and with the care required by Article 36 of the Constitution and held that there had been a violation of the right to legal assistance ensured by the same provision. 44 .     In its Ruşen Bayar judgment of 15 June 2022 (application no.   2020/33709), the Constitutional Court examined the fairness of criminal proceedings which had been reopened following the domestic court’s finding that the application for reopening had been admissible (namely, it had met the conditions in Article 311 § 1 (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). In that case, the domestic court found, without holding a hearing, that the statements that the applicant had made in the absence of a lawyer should be excluded from the reasoning of the conviction and decided not to amend the line of reasoning underlying the conviction in view of the other evidence in the case file. The Constitutional Court found a violation of Article   36 of the Constitution, holding that in order to comply with the judgment of a violation given by the European Court of Human Rights, the domestic courts should reopen the criminal proceedings by granting the applicant the rights of defence in accordance with the procedural safeguards ensured to him by the right to a fair trial. On that basis, the Constitutional Court found that the decision of the domestic courts had not been in accordance with the violation judgment, nor had it contained any assessment to the extent and with the care required by Article 36 of the Constitution. Accordingly, there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to legal assistance taken in conjunction with his right to a fair trial. Paragraph 27 of the judgment reads as follows: “... As a matter of fact, a judgment finding a violation given by the Court has been accepted as a ground for a retrial in Law no.   5271 on the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a view to ensuring the effective protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in theory as well as in practice. Law no. 5271 leaves no discretion to the judicial authorities on this matter and entails that a case which is concluded with a final decision is to be retried through the reopening of the proceedings (see [Constitutional Court judgment] Nihat Akbulak [GC], application no.   2015/10131, §   37, 7 June 2018) ...” THE LAW          ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6   §   1 OF THE CONVENTION 45.     The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the proceedings concerning his application for the reopening of criminal proceedings against him following the Court’s judgment in Davut Abo v.   Turkey   [Committee], no.   22493/07, 26 November 2013) had been unfair in that the domestic court had neither carried out an examination of his submissions nor made any enquiries in that connection. In the same vein, the applicant contended that the proceedings had been excessively long. The relevant parts of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention provide as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”    Admissibility 46.     The Government raised three preliminary objections, arguing that (i)   the Court had no jurisdiction under Article 46 of the Convention to deal with the present application; (ii)   the proceedings whereby the applicant’s application for reopening had been assessed had not fallen within the scope of Article   6; and (iii)   the application was manifestly ill-founded. 47.     The applicant contested those submissions.      Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article   46 of the Convention to examine the present application    The parties’ submissions 48.     The Government submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction to consider the present application, arguing that the applicant’s complaints essentially concerned the domestic courts’ failure to implement the Court’s judgment in respect of him, because the complaints focused solely on the refusal to reopen the criminal proceedings despite the judgment in question. In the Government’s view, the task of supervising the execution of the judgments of the Court fell, in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention, within the remit of the Committee of Ministers, which had decided to close its examination of, inter alia , the applicant’s case on 7   June 2018, after being duly apprised of the domestic courts’ refusal to reopen the criminal proceedings against him. 49.     The Government further submitted that there were no new issues which could have entrusted the Court with jurisdiction to examine the present application. In fact, the present application was markedly different from Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) ([GC], no. 19867/12, 11 July 2017), because the procedures followed by the Portuguese Supreme Court regarding the reopening of proceedings and those applicable in Turkish law were different. Additionally, unlike the applicant in Moreira Ferreira (cited above), the applicant in the present case had not put forward a new issue which had not been examined in the Court’s judgment of 26 November 2013 in respect of him. Lastly, the proceedings before the Committee of Ministers had already been completed, which had not been the case in Moreira Ferreira (cited above), and this was further proof that the trial court’s refusal of the applicant’s application for reopening of the proceedings did not constitute a new fact. 50.     In the Government’s view, the present application was more akin to Öcalan v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010), where the Court had concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the application under Article   46 of the Convention, as the domestic courts’ decision rejecting that applicant’s application for reopening of the proceedings was similar in type and content to the decisions in the present case. In that case, the application for reopening, based on the Grand Chamber’s judgment in Öcalan v. Turkey ([GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-IV), had been dismissed because the Court had found that even if the violations of Article 6 of the Convention had not been committed, the applicant would have been convicted on the basis of the same provisions of the Criminal Code as those which had been the subject of the Grand Chamber judgment. Accordingly, the Court had found that no new factual or legal elements that had not been examined and determined by the previous judgment had been brought before the domestic courts . Moreover, in Öcalan ((dec.), cited above), the Court had also attached weight to the fact that the execution process in respect of the previous judgment had been completed, which was also the case in relation to the present application. 51.     The Government further submitted that the grounds on which the Diyarbakır Fourth Assize Court had refused the applicant’s application for reopening of the proceedings, namely that it had not been possible to remedy the violations by means of a retrial and that the violations had not affected the merits of his conviction, had been comparable to the situation in Öcalan ((dec.), cited above) in that they had not raised a new issue. In any event, the Assize Court had not conducted a new trial which would have required an assessment of the procedural safeguards, and its decision dismissing the applicant’s application for reopening did not contain any new relevant grounds or information. Accordingly, the Government contended that the Court was not able to deal with the present application. 52.     The applicant invited the Court to disregard the Government’s observations, arguing that the present application had given rise to new issues stemming from the domestic courts’ refusal of his application to have the proceedings reopened and their failure to comply with the requirements arising from the Court’s judgment finding a violation of his right to a fair trial.    The Court’s assessment       General principles 53.     The Court does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a Contracting Party has complied with the obligations imposed on it by one of the Court’s judgments. It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae unless a new issue is raised which was undecided in the earlier judgment (see Egmez v. Cyprus , no. 12214/07, §§   50 ‑ 51, 18 September 2012; see also Moreira Ferreira , cited above, §   47). The determination of the existence of a “new issue” very much depends on the specific circumstances of a given case (see Egmez , § 54, and Moreira Ferreira , § 47, both cited above). 54.     Moreover, a refusal to examine complaints concerning the State’s failure to execute the Court’s judgments is distinct from the issue of the unfairness of proceedings for the review of an application to have the criminal proceedings reopened based on and following the Court’s judgment finding a violation of the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention and the Protocols thereto. In fact, the Court has declared cases falling within the first   category inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, on the grounds that it does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a Contracting Party has complied with the obligations imposed on it by one of its judgments (see Egmez , cited above, § 50, with further references, which was quoted in full in Bochan v.   Ukraine (no.2) [GC], no.   22251/08, § 34, ECHR 2015). The inadmissibility decision in Öcalan ((dec.), cited above), on which the Government predicated a substantial part of their argument under the present head, undoubtedly fell within the first group of cases, in so far as it concerned the Court’s finding that it had no jurisdiction under Article   46 of the Convention to examine that application. 55.     However, the Court has declined to adopt the same stance in the second group of cases. In fact, in Moreira Ferreira (cited above), the Court held that the proceedings in which the Portuguese Supreme Court refused to review the applicant’s conviction following the Court’s judgment finding a violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention in respect of her “incontrovertibly” conce