CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 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 } .sB176A172 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt } .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 } SECOND SECTION Application no. 10108/10 Mustafa İKE against Turkey lodged on 25 January 2010 The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s partial decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Is the judicial review provided in Turkish law of the lawfulness of detention on remand consistent with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? Regard being had to the findings of the Court in the cases of Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria (28 October 1998, § 162, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII); Reinprecht v. Austria (no. 67175/01, §   31, ECHR 2005 ‑ XII) and Nikolova v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 31195/96, §§   58 and 61, ECHR 1999 ‑ II), has there been a violation of this provision on account of lack of a hearing in the proceedings in issue and/or on account of lack of sufficient reasoning in the relevant decisions?