CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mars 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFC8B7517 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:48pt; text-align:center } .s3987A73C { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:60pt } .s2C17995A { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sD16F2F1F { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } SECOND SECTION Application no. 32015/09 Hebun Hakan AKKAYA against Turkey lodged on 25 May 2009 The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s partial decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC. 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 (see Nart v.   Turkey , no. 20817/04, §§ 29-35, 6 May 2008)?   2.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, given that the applicant, who was a minor at the time, was not allowed to see his father due to a disciplinary sanction imposed on the latter? If so, was that interference in accordance with Article   8 §   2 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?