CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2012

.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 } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sF28EB49 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:3pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } SECOND SECTION Application no. 6593/08 Bekir KILIÇASLAN against Turkey   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 §   4 of the Convention? In particular, was the alleged non-communication to the applicant of the public prosecutor’s opinion and the absence of an oral hearing in the proceedings before the 11 th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have an enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?   4.     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?   5.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint of undue length of criminal proceedings, as guaranteed under Article 13 of the Convention?