CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 3 October 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 62018/12 Tarik KAYA and others against Turkey lodged on 22 September 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicants’ arrest and detention on remand within the context of a criminal investigation initiated against them on the charge of membership of a terrorist organisation, i.e. the KCK (the Kurdistan Communities Union) investigation. The applicants were members of various trade unions, affiliated to the KESK (the Confederation of Public Sector Workers’ Union - Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu ). They rely on Article 5 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was individual application to the Constitutional Court an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision? What is the relevance of the Constitutional Court’s decision in application brought by the third applicant, Mr   İzzettin Alpergin, (application no. 2013/385 dated 14 July 2015) in this respect?   2.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the investigation file (Ankara public prosecutor’s office - no. 2011/1268) contain facts and information which would satisfy an objective observer that the applicants might have committed the alleged offence?   3.     Bearing in mind that the Court is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see, for instance, Akdeniz v. Turkey , no.   25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005; Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04, § 43, ECHR 2012; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §   55, ECHR 2015) and having regard to the submissions of the applicants (see, in particular, paragraphs 20 and 21 of the application form), has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention?