CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 octobre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s15D92DFC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } SECOND SECTION Application no. 15048/09 Hebat ASLAN and Firas ASLAN against Turkey lodged on 16 February 2009     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Were the domestic court’s orders for the applicants continued pre-trial detention substantiated?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their pre-trial detention, as required by Article   5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular:   (a).     Did the applicants request a hearing in the determination of the lawfulness of their pre-trial detention? If so, did the domestic courts hold a hearing? The parties are requested to submit all relevant documents, in particular petitions containing the applicants’ requests to be released between 9 January and 12 March 2009 and afterwards.   (b).     Did the applicants have an adversarial procedure concerning their requests to be released? Were the public prosecutor’s observations on the merits of their requests to be released communicated to the applicants?   (c).     Did the inability of the applicants and their lawyer to have access to the file at the investigation stage deprive the applicants of the possibility to effectively challenge the decision remanding them in custody?   3.     Did the applicants have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for their detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?