CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s69BE5A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s44D1C6ED { width:104.1%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s43DF712E { width:9.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sF48F8355 { width:20.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCA237E3B { width:27.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s78BE26FF { width:20.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s684FF52D { width:22.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7BC0CE1 { width:9.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE4175875 { width:20.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEBF053C5 { width:27.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3CD4B011 { width:20.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s95D076D1 { width:22.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 11 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 5378/17 Diyar KAZAK and Others against Türkiye lodged on 23 November 2016 communicated on 21 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the pre-trial detention of the three applicants, who were all minors (aged 17) at the material time. On 18 March 2016 they were taken into police custody in the context of an operation conducted against a terrorist organisation, namely the youth branch of the PKK (YDG ‑ H). On 21 March 2016 they were brought before the Gaziantep 1 st Magistrate’s Court, which ordered their pre-trial detention on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation, terrorist propaganda and breach of the provisions of the Meetings and Demonstrations Act (Law no. 2911). The third applicant relies on Article 5 of the Convention and complains that he was detained in the absence of a reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence and that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons justifying his initial detention. All three applicants rely on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and complain that the restriction imposed on the access to the investigation file impaired the effectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the third applicant be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion” that he had committed an offence, within the meaning 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?   2.     Was the third applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the judges, who ordered his initial pre-trial detention, and who examined the objection lodged against that decision, 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)?   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, had the applicants been unable to challenge effectively their detention because of the restriction imposed on their access to the investigation file (see Ceviz v. Turkey , no. 8140/08, § 41, 17 July 2012, and Nedim Şener v. Turkey , no. 38270/11, § 82, 8 July 2014)?   APPENDIX   List of applicants: Application no. 5378/17   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Diyar KAZAK 1999 Turkish Gaziantep 2. Özcan ALPYÜRÜK 1999 Turkish Gaziantep 3. Ferhat SONĞUR 1999 Turkish Gaziantep