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 } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; 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 } .s15DA206 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sFF980267 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s16FF86CB { height:105pt } .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 } .s42928CAE { height:90pt } .s5EB4F24 { height:75pt } .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. 16777/18 Sümeyra ACAROĞLU against Turkey and 78 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’ arrests 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 and 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 for the following reasons: -   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 16777/18 Acaroğlu   v.   Turkey   04/04/2018 Length of custody Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 2 16806/18 Öztürk v. Turkey   26/03/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 3 16906/18 Deniz v. Turkey   20/03/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 4 16907/18 Alemdar v. Turkey   20/03/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 5 16909/18 Yıldırım v. Turkey   20/03/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 6 16941/18 Tükenmez v. Turkey   02/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 7 16954/18 Arıtık v. Turkey   29/03/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 8 16981/18 Karahalil v. Turkey   15/03/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 9 17110/18 Melemez v. Turkey   16/03/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 10 17141/18 Uğur v. Turkey   12/03/2018 Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 11 17353/18 Bakar v. Turkey   26/02/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 12 17681/18 Sabır v. Turkey   03/04/2018 Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 13 17720/18 Sarıtemur v. Turkey   06/04/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 14 17825/18 Ünal v. Turkey   05/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 15 18027/18 Serçe v. Turkey   06/04/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 16 18054/18 Beyaz v. Turkey   10/04/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 17 18785/18 Arık v. Turkey   17/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 18 18799/18 Sarı v. Turkey   17/04/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 19 19248/18 Ünlü v. Turkey   10/04/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 20 19254/18 Dere v. Turkey 12/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 21 19465/18 Aykan v. Turkey   11/04/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 22 19695/18 Tekin v. Turkey   16/04/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 23 19707/18 Öz v. Turkey   16/04/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 24 19867/18 Gülecen v. Turkey   18/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 25 19870/18 Demirci v. Turkey   18/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 26 20000/18 Çam v. Turkey   08/03/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 27 20263/18 Uygur v. Turkey   17/04/2018 Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 28 20379/18 Kayabaşı v. Turkey   17/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 29 20491/18 Akkoyun v. Turkey   16/04/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 30 20508/18 Doğan v. Turkey   19/04/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 31 20982/18 Solmaz v. Turkey   24/04/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 32 20993/18 Cerit v. Turkey   19/04/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 33 21054/18 Yaşar v. Turkey   25/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 34 21066/18 Dinç v. Turkey   25/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 35 21074/18 Kaplan v. Turkey   20/04/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 36 21077/18 Göksu v. Turkey   28/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 37 21078/18 Aytekin v. Turkey   20/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 38 21079/18 Uyar v. Turkey   20/04/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 39 21083/18 Karakaş v. Turkey   20/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 40 21101/18 Büyük v. Turkey   20/04/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 41 21157/18 Aydın v. Turkey   20/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 42 21159/18 Atak v. Turkey   20/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 43 21161/18 Yıldırım v. Turkey   20/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 44 21310/18 Göçmen v. Turkey   10/04/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 45 21973/18 Yardımcı v. Turkey   17/04/2018 Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 46 22008/18 Göksel v. Turkey   30/04/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 47 22076/18 Karabürk v. Turkey   02/05/2018 Lack of hearing during the detention review Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 48 22108/18 Güneş v. Turkey   02/05/2018 Lack of hearing during the detention review Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 49 22134/18 Balık v. Turkey   02/05/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 50 22218/18 Şahin v. Turkey   03/05/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 51 22237/18 Koç v. Turkey   30/04/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 52 23391/18 Kaplan v. Turkey   08/05/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 53 23597/18 Polat v. Turkey   30/04/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 54 23626/18 Çakır v. Turkey   30/04/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 55 23631/18 Ekiz v. Turkey   30/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 56 23635/18 Atalay v. Turkey   30/04/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 57 23646/18 Eker v. Turkey   30/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 58 23659/18 Yiğit v. Turkey   30/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 59 23774/18 Arı v. Turkey   05/04/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 60 23780/18 Dolamaç v. Turkey   03/05/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 61 23871/18 Çam v. Turkey   04/05/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 62 23882/18 Hallaçoğlu v. Turkey   26/04/2018 Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 63 23885/18 Ünal v. Turkey   07/05/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 64 23897/18 Tunç v. Turkey   11/05/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 65 24172/18 Ağsakallı v. Turkey   07/05/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 66 24212/18 Kahraman v. Turkey   05/05/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 67 24223/18 Murat v. Turkey   07/05/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 68 24232/18 Özgül v. Turkey   08/05/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 69 24719/18 Demir v. Turkey   11/05/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 70 24861/18 Konak v. Turkey   02/05/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 71 24894/18 Köylü v. Turkey   11/05/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 72 25205/18 Özcan v. Turkey   21/05/2018 Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 73 25234/18 Yüksel v. Turkey   23/05/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 74 25292/18 Gökçegöz v. Turkey   25/05/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 75 25294/18 Demirci v. Turkey   24/05/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 76 25335/18 Cantav v. Turkey   22/05/2018 Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 77 25353/18 Solak v. Turkey   22/05/2018 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 78 25901/18 Karakaya v. Turkey   22/05/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 79 26019/18 Şen v. Turkey   28/05/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention