CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 décembre 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 January 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 8512/20 Erkan AYDIN against Türkiye lodged on 24 January 2020 communicated on 7 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s pre-trial detention on account of his participation in an unlawful demonstration in Adana on 23 August 2015. According to the documents in the case file, the applicant was arrested and placed under pre-trial detention for participating in the above demonstration, which had allegedly been organised following calls by the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organisation) and attacking police officers with Molotov cocktails. The applicant indicates that during the criminal proceedings, he was kept in pre-trial detention for nine months. The applicant mainly complains about the length of his pre-trial detention and the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his continued pre-trial detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant exhaust the remedies available in domestic law in relation to his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention? To the extent that the applicant’s complaints did not relate solely to the length of his pre-trial detention but also concerned the alleged failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his 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)?   2.     Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular: (i)     Did the judges who ordered the applicant’s initial pre-trial detention and the prolongation of his 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 applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?