CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 février 2019

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 25 February 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45808/18 M.Ö. against Turkey lodged on 21 September 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the individual application made by the applicant before the Constitutional Court. The applicant alleges that the Constitutional Court did not examine his complaints, notably the alleged violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of a preventive seizure of his assets and the alleged violation of his right to presumption of innocence on account of a tweet published in the twitter account of the Deputy President of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors. He argues that the Constitutional Court gave a generic inadmissibility decision which was not relevant to the factual circumstances of his case or to the specific complaints he raised in his application form. The case raises issues under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the proceedings in the present case fair for the purposes of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the Constitutional Court comply with their obligation to give reasons for their decision and to reply to the Convention complaints of the applicant (see, inter alia , García Ruiz v.   Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I)? Could the impugned decision be considered arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable in so far as it concerns the reasons provided with respect the Convention complaints of the applicant (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no.   19867/12, §   83, 11 July 2017 and the cases cited therein)?   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected by the Deputy President of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (Mr M.Y.) on account of his tweet published in his twitter account on 13 August 2016 referring to all judges and prosecutors who were suspended from their posts as those whose membership of the armed terrorist organisation were “conclusively proven” (see, inter alia, Allenet de Ribemont v. France , 10 February 1995, § 41, Series A no. 308)?