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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   Communicated on 3 October 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 46522/13 Kazım ŞEKER against Turkey lodged on 29 March 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention, the alleged excessive length of his pre-trial detention, the authorities’ alleged failure to inform the applicant of the reasons for his arrest and pre-trial detention, the alleged absence of effective remedies to challenge the lawfulness of the orders for his detention and the alleged breach of his right to freedom of expression on account of his arrest and pre-trial detention, within the context of a criminal investigation initiated against him on the charge of membership of a terrorist organisation, i.e. the KCK (the Kurdistan Communities Union) investigation. At the material time, the applicant worked as an editor at Özgür Gündem, a daily newspaper. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Were the authorities under an obligation to follow the procedure set out in Article 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before effecting the applicant’s arrest?   (b)     Did the investigation file (Istanbul public prosecutor’s office – 2011/1903) contain facts and information which would satisfy an objective observer that the applicant might have committed the alleged offence?   2.     Was the length of the applicant’s detention on remand in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal a remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular,   (a)     Is the remedy provided in Article 91 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   (b)     Was the absence of oral hearings and the applicant’s inability to be represented in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   (c)     Did the decision restricting access to investigation file no. 2011/1903 have a bearing on the applicant’s exercise of the right enshrined in Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?   5.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, on account of his arrest, detention in police custody, him being held on remand and the criminal proceedings brought against him?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 § 2?   The Government are invited to submit a copy of the file of investigation no.   2011/1903 in so far as it concerns the applicant   The Government are invited to submit all documents relating to the reasons for the applicant’s arrest, detention in police custody and remand, as well as the file of the case brought against the applicant and his co-accused.