CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 septembre 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 } Published on 2 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35454/19 Emre ÇETIN against Türkiye lodged on 28 May 2019 communicated on 13 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the arrest and detention of the applicant on suspicion of having committed an armed robbery. The applicant was a minor at the material time. On 2   December 2016 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention within the context of a criminal investigation initiated against him and a co-accused. The objections filed by the applicant to the detention order and his continued detention were rejected by the competent courts. In so doing, the competent judicial authorities took the following factors into consideration: the strong suspicions against him; the nature of the alleged offence and the fact that it was among the offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) – the so-called “catalogue offences”. On 8   February 2017 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court. On 20 November 2018 the Constitutional Court declared his application inadmissible. With regard to the complaint concerning the lawfulness of the order for and extension of the applicant’s detention, the Constitutional Court held that bearing in mind the statements made by the applicant, the fact that the phone which was the object of the crime was seized from the applicant, the forensic report regarding one of the victims and the statements of the victims, his pre-trial detention in connection with a robbery was not devoid of justification. It therefore held that these factors were sufficient grounds for a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence. The Constitutional Court stated that it was unable to conclude that the applicant’s detention had been disproportionate and arbitrary, notably in view of the domestic courts’ reasoning and the detention process. The applicant was released on 17   October 2017. The applicant mainly complains about the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his pre-trial detention and the fact that no alternative measures were taken despite his being a minor as well as about the length of his pre-trial detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     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, 5   July 2016)? Having regard in particular to the fact that the applicant was a minor at the material time, did the domestic courts consider alternative measures to the applicant’s detention?   (b)     Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (compare, in particular, Nart v. Turkey , no. 20817/04, §§ 29-34, 6   May 2008)?   The parties are invited to provide copies of all documents relating to the decisions extending the applicant’s detention, including all appeals against those decisions and all petitions requesting the applicant’s release.