CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 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 } .s39757262 { margin-top:60pt; 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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } SECOND SECTION Application no. 2118/10 Mahfuz TALU against Turkey lodged on 15 December 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.     In view of the Court’s findings in Erişen and Others v. Turkey (no.   7067/06, §§ 51-54, 3 April 2012), could it be held that the procedure by which the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was reviewed was in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in particular, with the requirement to hold a hearing at reasonable intervals?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?