CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sE72AEBE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sD375925E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sD9DA4DFD { height:45pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2BBD305F { height:60pt } .s5EB4F24 { height:75pt } .s4735089D { height:89.5pt } .s4C30776 { height:53.6pt } .s29286D70 { height:42.45pt } .s75534627 { height:60.8pt } .sA1FD4DFD { height:42pt } .s13A7E8B1 { height:41.8pt } .s46886D70 { height:48.65pt } .s13C8E8B1 { height:41.9pt } .s10134627 { height:67.3pt } .sB4F26D70 { height:46.25pt } .sEC1E756B { height:55.75pt } .sC50AE8B1 { height:42.4pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 6 April 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 117/18 Hüseyin KESKİN against Turkey and 83 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 19 March 2021 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Attempted coup d’état of 15 July 2016 3.     The relevant background information regarding the attempted coup d’état of 15   July 2016, and the developments that followed that attempt, may be found in the case of Baş v.   Turkey (no. 66448/17, §§ 6-14, 3   March 2020). Personal situation of the applicants (a)    The applicants’ arrest and pre-trial detention 4.     On 16 July 2016, the Bureau for Crimes against the Constitutional Order at the Ankara public prosecutor’s office launched a criminal investigation into the attempted coup d’état. Acting on the instructions of the Ankara public prosecutor’s office, regional and provincial prosecutors’   offices also initiated criminal investigations in respect of individuals suspected of being involved in the attempt and others who were not directly involved but were alleged to have links to the FETÖ/PDY (Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation / Parallel State Structure), which was considered to be behind the attempted coup d’état. 5.     The applicants were taken into police custody on various dates in the course of the aforementioned investigations. At the end of their detention in police custody, they were brought before the magistrates’ courts, which ordered their detention on remand. In ordering the applicants’ detention, the magistrates’ courts relied mainly on their alleged use of the ByLock encrypted messaging system, as well as on witness statements or other evidence in the case of a number of applicants. The magistrates’ courts justified the detention orders having regard, inter alia, to the nature of the offence at issue, the evidence adduced and the potential penalty, and also took into account the risk that the applicants might abscond, tamper with evidence and reoffend if not placed in pre-trial detention. They also noted that the investigations into the attempted coup were being conducted nationwide, that statements had not been collected from all suspects, and that the offence with which they were charged was among the so-called “catalogue” offences listed in Article   100   §   3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the “CCP”). The magistrates’ courts concluded, on the basis of the foregoing, that the applicants’ pre-trial detention appeared to be a proportionate measure at that stage of the proceedings. 6.     Objections lodged by the applicants against the detention orders were dismissed by other magistrates’ courts, in terms similar to the initial decisions. (b)    Decisions on the continuation of the applicants’ pre-trial detention and the dismissal of their objections 7.     The applicants’ continued pre-trial detention was reviewed automatically pursuant to Article 108 of the CCP, which provides for a review every thirty days. The judges ruled on the applicants’ requests for release at the same time as the automatic periodic review of their detentions, pursuant to Article   3, paragraph   1   (ç), of Legislative Decree no. 668. 8.     In most cases, the magistrates’ courts ordered the prolongation of the applicants’ detention in the course of its automatic periodic review conducted in respect of several suspects together. In their decisions, they essentially repeated the reasons given to justify the initial pre-trial detention. They noted that a large proportion of those suspected of being members of FETÖ/PDY had fled and were still wanted. Taking into account the resources available to that organisation and its characteristics, the judges considered that there was a risk that the applicants might abscond, tamper with evidence and reoffend if released. The judges also stressed the seriousness of the terrorism-related offences with which the applicants were charged and the fact that not all the evidence had yet been collected. They concluded that the decisions to continue the detention were justified in the light of the information, documents and evidence in the investigation files. They added that given that there was still a clear and imminent danger associated with the attempted coup d’état, continued detention appeared to be a proportionate measure. 9.     Objections lodged by the applicants against the prolongation of their detention were rejected by the magistrates’ courts, which largely relied on the grounds indicated in their previous decisions. 10.     At the investigation stage, both the requests made by the public prosecutors for the extension of the detentions, and the applicants’ objections to their continued detention, were examined on the basis of the case files, pursuant to Article 6, paragraph   1, subparagraph   ı, of Legislative Decree no.   667. 11.     During the course of the subsequent trial stage, the first-instance courts, ruling either at the end of the hearings or at reviews carried out between the hearings, ordered the applicants’ continued detention and dismissed the requests for release on grounds similar to those noted above. 12.     On various dates, the first-instance courts convicted some of the applicants of membership of a terrorist organisation. According to the latest information in the case files, the criminal proceedings against the remaining applicants are still pending before the first-instance courts. (c)    Individual applications to the Constitutional Court 13.     The applicants each lodged one or more individual applications with the Constitutional Court. On different dates, the Constitutional Court declared those applications inadmissible. The various complaints submitted by the applicants were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on the following grounds: 14.     With regard to the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention, the Constitutional Court noted that, according to the indictments and/or the investigation files, most of the applicants were users of ByLock. It considered that, given the characteristics of that messaging application, its use, or its downloading for use, could be reasonably considered by the investigating authorities as evidence of a link with FETÖ/PDY. It referred in this connection to its judgment in the case of Aydın Yavuz, delivered on 20   June 2017, where the use of that encrypted messaging application had been considered, depending on the circumstances of the case, as “strong evidence” of the commission of the offence of membership of FETÖ/PDY. Consequently, it could not be concluded that the investigating authorities or the courts that had decided on the applicants’ detention had acted arbitrarily. In addition, taking into account the reasons provided to justify detention, the Constitutional Court found that those measures were justified and proportionate. It therefore considered the applicants’ grievances in this regard to be manifestly ill-founded. As concerns some of the applicants, the Constitutional Court moreover noted that the indictments and/or investigation files contained witness statements or other pertinent evidence suggesting their membership of FETÖ/PDY, which demonstrated that they had been detained on the basis of “reasonable grounds to suspect” that they had committed an offence. 15.     As regards the complaint concerning the absence of a hearing during the review of detention, the Constitutional Court considered that there was no reason to depart from its landmark decision in the case of Aydın Yavuz, where it had found that the lack of a hearing during the review of detention, which had lasted approximately nine months, had not violated the right to liberty and security, having particular regard to the exigencies of the state of emergency. It therefore considered those complaints to be manifestly ill ‑ founded. 16.     As for the restriction on access to the investigation files, the Constitutional Court considered, after examining the transcripts of the hearings, the decisions relating to the applicants’ detention, the objections lodged against those decisions, and the documents and information contained in the investigation files, that the applicants had been informed of the elements that constituted the main grounds for their detention, that they had had sufficient knowledge of their content and that they had been given the opportunity to challenge the decisions ordering their detention. Therefore, it similarly found those complaints to be manifestly ill-founded. 17.     The Constitutional Court rejected the complaints lodged by some of the applicants concerning the lack of an oral hearing during the review of detention, the non-notification or belated notification of the detention decision, and the lack of or delay in the examination of the case by the magistrates’ courts on the grounds that they had failed to use the compensation remedy provided for by Article   141 of the CCP. 18.     The Constitutional Court dismissed any remaining complaints raised by the applicants on the grounds that they had not used the appropriate remedies. Relevant domestic law and practice 19.     The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the cases of Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey (no. 13237/17, §§ 56-80, 20 March 2018) and Baş (cited above, §§   52-104). COMPLAINTS 20.     The applicants complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on the basis of the following allegations (see the appended table for detailed information as to the specific complaints raised by each applicant): -   They had been detained in the absence of any suspicion that they had committed an offence; -   There had been no relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their initial and/or continued pre-trial detention; -   The length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive; -   The reviews of detention had taken place without a hearing and they had not been notified of the opinion of the public prosecutor on those reviews; -   Their access to the investigation files had been restricted; -   The objections to their detention or their requests for release had not been examined or examined belatedly; -   The decisions extending their pre-trial detention had not been notified to them, or had been notified with a delay, which had prevented them from appealing against those decisions; -   They had not benefited from effective legal assistance and facilities to challenge their detention, having particular regard to the fact that their communication with their lawyers had been monitored by the prison authorities; -   The time taken by the Constitutional Court to conduct its examination on their individual applications had been excessive. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES On the basis of the complaints communicated in accordance with the list in the Appendix   1.     Can the applicants be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion” that they had committed an offence (see, in particular, Fox, Campbell and   Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30   August 1990, § 32, Series A No. 182), taking into account, in particular, Article   100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires “concrete evidence demonstrating the existence of strong suspicions” as to the commission of the offence? Moreover, has the Constitutional Court based the existence of reasonable suspicion on evidence discovered after the decisions had been taken to detain the applicants?   2.     a. Did the applicants exhaust the remedies available in domestic law in relation to their complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? To the extent that the applicants’ complaints did not relate solely to the length of their pre-trial detention but also concerned the alleged failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and   sufficient   reasons to justify their initial and continued pre-trial detention, can a compensation claim under Article   141 § 1(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure be regarded as an effective remedy in respect of those complaints (see Selahattin Demirtaş v.   Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no.   14305/17, §   213, 22 December 2020)? The Government are invited to provide sample decisions to demonstrate whether the remedy under Article 141 § 1(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been interpreted and applied by the national courts in manner that extends to complaints concerning the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons to justify pre-trial detention. b. Was the applicants’ pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention? In particular: i. Did the judges, who ordered the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention and the prolongation of their detention, and who examined the objections lodged against those decisions, fulfil their obligation to provide relevant and sufficient grounds for the deprivation of liberty in question (see, in particular, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no.   23755/07, § 102, ECHR 2016 (extracts))? ii. Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal a remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5   §   4 of the Convention? In particular, the Government are invited to respond to the following complaints made by the applicants: i. the principle of equality of arms had not been respected, as the decisions to extend their detention and their objections to those decisions had been examined without a hearing and the prosecutors’ opinions had not been communicated to them; ii. they had been unable to challenge their detention in an effective manner because of the restriction imposed on their access to the investigation file; iii. their objections to their detention had not been examined or had been examined belatedly; iv. the decisions to extend their detention had not been notified to them or had been notified with a delay, which had prevented them from lodging objections against those decisions; v. they had had no effective legal assistance or facilities to challenge their detention, having particular regard to the fact that their communication with their lawyers had been monitored; vi. the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine their individual applications had been protracted.   4.     Did the compensation remedy provided under Article   141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure constitute an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article   5   §   4 of the Convention, in respect of complaints concerning (i) the lack of an oral hearing during the review of detention; (ii) the non-notification or belated notification of the detention decision; and (iii) the lack of or delay in the examination of the objection against detention by the magistrates’ courts? The Government are invited to provide sample domestic court decisions in support of their reply.     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case Title ID no. Date of Intro Complaints for each application 1 117/18 Keskin v. Turkey   06/12/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 2 174/18 Aymaz v. Turkey   05/12/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 3 352/18 Genç v. Turkey   28/11/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 4 356/18 Kılıç v. Turkey   29/11/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 5 747/18 Demir v. Turkey   07/12/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 6 2690/18 Paşaalioğlu v. Turkey   19/12/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 7 2859/18 Şeker v. Turkey   21/12/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 8 3279/18 Başar v. Turkey   26/12/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 9 3454/18 Yurdaer v. Turkey   08/12/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 10 4634/18 Eker v. Turkey   13/07/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 11 4640/18 Erğun v. Turkey   13/07/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 12 4722/18 Yılmaz v. Turkey   13/07/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 13 5936/18 Hanay v. Turkey   25/04/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 14 6388/18 Kocaman v. Turkey   18/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 15 6731/18 Biliyor v. Turkey   09/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 16 6769/18 Olcay v. Turkey   09/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 17 6959/18 Baş v. Turkey   24/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Lack of reasonable suspicion 18 7942/18 Atılgan v. Turkey   23/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 19 8899/18 Taş v. Turkey   02/06/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 20 8901/18 Girgin v. Turkey   02/06/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 21 8903/18 Yaşar v. Turkey   02/06/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 22 8906/18 Arslan v. Turkey   23/05/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 23 8912/18 Yıldız v. Turkey   06/07/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 24 8913/18 Teyran v. Turkey   23/06/2017 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 25 9581/18 Kumaş v. Turkey   13/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of reasonable suspicion 26 9583/18 Akbulut v. Turkey   13/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 27 9588/18 Yıldırım v. Turkey   13/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 28 9869/18 Yıldız v. Turkey   26/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 29 9947/18 Çamcı v. Turkey   29/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 30 9954/18 Gelir v. Turkey   29/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 31 9957/18 Arslan v. Turkey   29/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 32 9965/18 Kaya v. Turkey   29/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 33 9969/18 Güler v. Turkey   29/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 34 9975/18 Ayer v. Turkey   29/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 35 9982/18 Eren v. Turkey   29/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 36 10286/18 Güneyisi v. Turkey   06/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 37 10405/18 Arı v. Turkey   30/01/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 38 10609/18 Kara v. Turkey   12/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 39 10618/18 Gözüaçık v. Turkey   02/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 40 10648/18 Bilsel v. Turkey   13/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 41 10653/18 Tunçkol v. Turkey   13/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 42 10852/18 Sancar v. Turkey   02/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 43 11782/18 Çakır v. Turkey   14/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 44 11786/18 Ören v. Turkey   27/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 45 12210/18 Turan v. Turkey   23/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 46 12314/18 Sargın v. Turkey   26/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 47 12409/18 Yılmazlar v. Turkey   01/03/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 48 12565/18 Aydoğan v. Turkey   16/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 49 12602/18 Yıldırım v. Turkey   13/02/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 50 12628/18 Göksu v. Turkey   05/03/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion 51 12631/18 Tufan v. Turkey   08/03/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 52 13649/18 Tayman v. Turkey   09/03/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 53 13739/18 Şahin v. Turkey   19/03/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 54 14500/18 Altay v. Turkey   16/03/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 55 14565/18 Özer v. Turkey   16/03/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 56 14817/18 Acar v. Turkey   07/03/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 57 15433/18 Kaya v. Turkey   22/03/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 58 26339/18 Hayal v. Turkey   27/05/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 59 26411/18 Özyapı v. Turkey   30/05/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 60 27123/18 Koçak v. Turkey   01/06/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 61 40844/18 Metin v. Turkey   16/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Lack of reasonable suspicion 62 40911/18 Can v. Turkey   10/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 63 41230/18 Pekkürkcü v. Turkey   18/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 64 41526/18 Atak v. Turkey   06/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 65 41846/18 Şenliler v. Turkey   17/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 66 41856/18 Pınarakar v. Turkey   14/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 67 42184/18 Boğur v. Turkey   29/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 68 42238/18 Dolaşık v. Turkey   27/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 69 42247/18 Sevinç v. Turkey   13/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 70 42307/18 Şahin v. Turkey   15/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 71 42430/18 Bedir v. Turkey   03/09/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 72 42591/18 Demir v. Turkey   27/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion 73 42673/18 Kural v. Turkey   31/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 74 42857/18 Dilcioğlu v. Turkey   28/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 75 42858/18 Alıcı v. Turkey   28/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 76 42872/18 Gülten v. Turkey   14/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 77 42882/18 Çalışkan v. Turkey   29/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 78 42887/18 Köroğlu v. Turkey   06/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 79 42901/18 Kara v. Turkey   06/09/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 80 43165/18 Ebcim v. Turkey   03/09/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 81 43671/18 Ceran v. Turkey   03/09/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 82 43712/18 Durdu v. Turkey   29/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 83 43864/18 Baş v. Turkey   29/08/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 84 43979/18 Küçük v. Turkey   03/09/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion