CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2023

.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 } .s9C3E97BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s69934500 { height:33.4pt } .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 } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s12D5263B { height:24.2pt } .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 } .s6D511073 { height:24pt } .s2F6D0583 { width:25.24pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 20 February 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 59648/16 Mert ELİBOL against Türkiye and 84 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 1 February 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants, who were apparently all judges or prosecutors at the material time, on suspicion of membership of FETÖ/PDY (an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as “Fetullahist Terror Organisation / Parallel State Structure”), in the aftermath of the attempted coup d’état which took place on 15 July 2016. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants raise the following complaints (see the appended table for detailed information as to the specific complaints raised by each applicant): - They were detained on remand in breach of the procedural guarantees provided in domestic law for judges and prosecutors; - They were detained in the absence of any suspicion that they committed an offence; - There were no relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their initial and/or continued pre-trial detention; - The length of their pre-trial detention was excessive; - The reviews of detention took place without a hearing and they were not notified of the opinion of the public prosecutor on those reviews; - Their access to the investigation files was restricted; - The objections to their detention or their requests for release were not examined or examined belatedly; - The decisions extending their pre-trial detention were not notified to them, or were notified with a delay, which prevented them from appealing against those decisions; - They did not benefit from effective legal assistance and facilities to challenge their detention, having particular regard to the fact that their communication with their lawyers was restricted and monitored by the prison authorities; - The time taken by the Constitutional Court to conduct its examination on their individual applications was excessive. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, some of the applicants also complain that the searches conducted by the authorities in their homes and offices were unlawful. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES On the basis of the complaints communicated in accordance with the list in the Appendix Complaints under Article 5 of the Convention 1.     (a)     Did the applicants’ pre-trial detention take place “in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law”, for the purposes of Article   5   §   1 of the Convention, in view of the procedural guarantees provided to judges and prosecutors by the domestic law (compare Baş v. Turkey , no.   66448/17, §§   130-162, 3 March 2020)? (b)     Can the applicants be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion” that they had committed an offence, for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (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 (see, in particular, Baş , cited above, § 185)?   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)?   (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 (see, in particular, Baş , cited above, §§ 212-214, and Kocamış and Kurt v. Turkey , no. 227/13, §§ 34-35, 25 January 2022); (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 (see, inter alia , Ceviz v. Turkey , no. 8140/08, § 41, 17 July 2012); (iii)     their objections to their detention had not been examined or had been examined belatedly (see, for example, Shannon v. Latvia , no.   32214/03, §§   67-74, 24 November 2009); (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 (compare, for example, Voskuil v.   the Netherlands , no. 64752/01, § 83, 22 November 2007); (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 restricted and monitored (see, mutatis mutandis , Černák v. Slovakia , no. 36997/08, § 78, 17 December 2013); (vi)     the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine their individual applications had been excessive (compare for the relevant principles Kavala v.   Turkey , no. 28749/18, §§ 181-184, 10 December 2019). 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 absence of a reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of a criminal offence; (ii) the unlawfulness of the arrest and pre-trial detention; (iii) the lack of an oral hearing during the review of detention; (iv) the non‑notification or belated notification of the detention decision; (v) the lack of or delay in the examination of the objection against detention by the magistrates’ courts (compare, for example, Hebat Aslan and Firas Aslan v. Turkey , no.   15048/09, §§   92-93, 28 October 2014)? Complaints under Article 8 of the Convention 5.     Taking into consideration the searches carried out by the authorities in the applicants’ homes and offices (applications nos. 36806/17, 52661/19, 25207/20, 44792/20, 44950/20, 29508/21, 32945/21 and 44825/21): (a)     Was there an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and home and was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 of the Convention (compare, for example, Tercan v. Turkey , no. 6158/18, §§ 189-202, 29 June 2021)? (b)     Was the compensation remedy provided under Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an effective one in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Article 8 of the Convention? The Government are invited to provide copies of decisions awarding compensation in cases raising similar issues.   APPENDIX   List of applications   No. Application no. Case title Date of Introduction Complaints for each application 1. 59648/16 Elibol v. Türkiye 07/10/2016 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 2. 36806/17 Us v. Türkiye 16/01/2017 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Unlawful search of home and/or office 3. 75370/17 Altun v. Türkiye 03/10/2017 Lack of reasonable suspicion Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 4. 40605/17 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 21/03/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review 5. 71077/17 Akgün v. Türkiye 21/08/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 6. 8610/18 Turğut v. Türkiye 27/04/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law 7. 24694/18 Uğur v. Türkiye 16/05/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 8. 32618/18 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 26/06/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 9. 32859/18 Dalda v. Türkiye 16/05/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 10. 33576/18 Aslan v. Türkiye 03/07/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 11. 34975/18 Orhan v. Türkiye 06/07/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 12. 35752/18 Tokar v. Türkiye 11/07/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 13. 37004/18 Yavaş v. Türkiye 29/05/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 14. 37361/18 Demir v. Türkiye 27/07/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 15. 49856/18 Taşlıtepe v. Türkiye 17/10/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 16. 53537/18 Başdaş v. Türkiye 08/11/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 17. 54861/18 Kazancı v. Türkiye 10/11/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 18. 55540/18 Kılınç v. Türkiye 24/11/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention 19. 2870/19 Açıkgöz v. Türkiye 02/01/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 20. 7027/19 Göçer v. Türkiye 22/01/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 21. 8405/19 Beyazıt v. Türkiye 18/12/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 22. 9796/19 Girdi v. Türkiye 29/01/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 23. 16151/19 Zorlu v. Türkiye 08/03/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 24. 19800/19 Güney v. Türkiye 05/04/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 25. 21440/19 Dinçer v. Türkiye 05/04/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection 26. 21587/19 Acar v. Türkiye 01/04/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention 27. 30505/19 Özgür v. Türkiye 30/05/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 28. 33932/19 Bingöl v. Türkiye 21/06/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection 29. 40542/19 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 27/07/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 30. 40999/19 Gökdemir v. Türkiye 29/07/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 31. 46485/19 Gok v. Türkiye 11/07/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion   32. 50439/19 Görenez v. Türkiye 11/09/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection 33. 52661/19 Coşkun v. Türkiye 25/09/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Unlawful search of home and/or office 34. 55086/19 Küçükbileci v.   Türkiye 15/10/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 35. 58168/19 Arkuntaş v. Türkiye 04/09/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 36. 58363/19 Bulut v. Türkiye 30/10/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 37. 7115/20 Haydar v. Türkiye 29/01/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 38. 8220/20 Erdem v. Türkiye 21/01/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 39. 9458/20 Kuzgun v. Türkiye 20/08/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 40. 22796/20 Atalay v. Türkiye 29/05/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 41. 23417/20 Yar v. Türkiye 21/05/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention   42. 23617/20 Karakoca v. Türkiye 14/05/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 43. 25207/20 Berk v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Unlawful search of home and/or office 44. 27201/20 Kocagöz v. Türkiye 25/06/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 45. 29081/20 Borazan v. Türkiye 06/07/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 46. 30088/20 Akıncı v. Türkiye 13/06/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 47. 30642/20 Alpertonga v.   Türkiye 03/07/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 48. 31910/20 Sülün v. Türkiye 22/05/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 49. 32806/20 Doğan v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 50. 34097/20 Süzer v. Türkiye 08/06/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 51. 36900/20 Akpınar v. Türkiye 05/08/2020 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection 52. 44792/20 Güllü v. Türkiye 24/09/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection Unlawful search of home and/or office 53. 44950/20 Özdemir v. Türkiye 29/09/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Unlawful search of home and/or office 54. 48584/20 Köse v. Türkiye 21/10/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 55. 52810/20 Demircan v. Türkiye 27/11/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 56. 54964/20 Koçak v. Türkiye 27/11/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 57. 8272/21 Deveci v. Türkiye 01/02/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 58. 11396/21 Sayıldı v. Türkiye 21/01/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 59. 11901/21 Baydilli v. Türkiye 05/02/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 60. 13390/21 Sarıkaya v. Türkiye 26/02/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 61. 15834/21 Onuk v. Türkiye 22/02/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 62. 18293/21 Avcı v. Türkiye 29/03/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 63. 18521/21 Ayral v. Türkiye 26/03/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion 64. 22560/21 Akarsu v. Türkiye 07/04/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 65. 24054/21 Durmaz v. Türkiye 26/04/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 66. 24476/21 Akar v. Türkiye 14/04/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection 67. 28487/21 Arslan v. Türkiye 18/05/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention 68. 28713/21 Erhan v. Türkiye 27/05/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 69. 29098/21 Tüfekçi v. Türkiye 19/02/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion 70. 29508/21 Kılınç v. Türkiye 03/06/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Unlawful search of home and/or office 71. 32263/21 Keskin v. Türkiye 17/06/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention 72. 32945/21 Demir v. Türkiye 21/06/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Unlawful search of home and/or office 73. 36192/21 Durmuş v. Türkiye 06/07/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 74. 36745/21 Mutlu v. Türkiye 16/06/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 75. 37172/21 Özdemir v. Türkiye 12/07/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 76. 41945/21 Zararsız v. Türkiye 16/08/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection 77. 44825/21 Altındağ v. Türkiye 03/09/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Unlawful search of home and/or office 78. 48277/21 Çoğan v. Türkiye 23/09/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review 79. 48829/21 Kaya v. Türkiye 14/08/2020 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 80. 83/22 Erdinç v. Türkiye 15/12/2021 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection 81. 4326/22 Uysal v. Türkiye 10/01/2022 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention 82. 6292/22 Durmuşoğlu v.   Türkiye 14/01/2022 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 83. 9478/22 Özkan v. Türkiye 11/02/2022 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 84. 9483/22 Özkan v. Türkiye 11/02/2022 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 85. 15081/22 Işık v. Türkiye 17/03/2022 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion