CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 25 January 2021 Published on 15 February 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 61808/19 Yılmaz AYDEMİR against Turkey lodged on 15 November 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings for judicial review of the applicant’s detention ordered with the pronouncement of sentence. On 26 April 2016 the Ankara 8 th Assize Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to 12 years 6 months and 5 days’ imprisonment for drug trafficking. In the same judgment, the Assize Court ordered the applicant’s detention ( hükmen tutukluluk ), as he was not detained during the pre-trial proceedings. On 27 April 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal against the detention order. The Ankara 9 th Assize Court rejected the applicant’s objection against the detention order of 26 April 2016 without disclosing to him the public prosecutor’s opinion. The applicant introduced an individual application with the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) and complained, inter alia , about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion during the proceedings for judicial review of his detention. The TCC declared this complaint inadmissible considering that the applicant did not suffer any significant prejudice. The applicant complains that the proceedings for judicial review of his detention violated his right to equality of arms guaranteed by Article 5 §   4 of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Were the guarantees of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention applicable to the procedure for the appeal review of the applicant’s post-conviction detention (see Stollenwerk v. Germany , no. 8844/12, §§ 35-37, 7 September   2017 with further references)? If so, was the principle of equality of arms complied with in the proceedings by which the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention was decided, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that the opinion of the public prosecutor has not been communicated to him (see Altınok v. Turkey , no. 31610/08, §§ 39-40, 29 November 2011)?