CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 décembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD9D1A540 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } SECOND SECTION Application no. 18979/09 Aslı DOĞAN against Turkey lodged on 23 March 2009   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Aslı Doğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Gebze. Her application was lodged on 23   March 2009. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Erbil, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 8 April 2007 the applicant was caught red-handed in central Istanbul with explosives on her person and was subsequently taken into police custody. On 12 April 2007, by a decision of the investigating judge, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention. On 7 May 2007 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul Assize Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with membership of the PKK and possessing explosives. In the course of the proceedings, the Istanbul Assize Court reviewed the applicant’s pre-trial detention a number of times and rejected her request to be released pending trial. On 9 September 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court, once more, decided to prolong the applicant’s detention on the basis of the nature of the charges brought against her and the state of the evidence in the case file. The applicant lodged an objection against the decision of 9   September 2008, requesting the 11 th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court to review the lawfulness of her continued detention. During the proceedings, the applicant alleges that she was not notified of the public prosecutor’s written opinion and that the review was conducted without any oral hearing. On 24 September 2008 the 11 th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court rejected the applicant’s objection, finding that the lower court’s decision had been reasonable. On 30 December 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged, and sentenced her to eighteen years’ imprisonment in total and to a fine. On 15 February 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction for membership of an illegal organisation, but quashed the part relating to the possession of explosives. On the basis of the evidence before it, on 7 April 2011 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant of transporting explosives at the behest of an illegal organisation, and sentenced her to ten years’ imprisonment along with a fine. According to the information in the case file, the criminal proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Cassation. COMPLAINTS Relying on Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the length of her pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings brought against her. The applicant next complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that she was denied an adversarial hearing in the proceedings before the 11 th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court. In this connection, the applicant maintains that the court reviewed the lawfulness of her continued detention solely on the basis of written submissions and that during the proceedings she was not notified of the public prosecutor’s opinion. Finally, the applicant contends under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy provided in the domestic system for the alleged violations of Articles 5 and 6. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   2.     Has the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3. Has there been an effective domestic remedy for the applicant’s complaint of unreasonable length of criminal proceedings, as guaranteed under Article 13 of the Convention?