CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 novembre 2024

.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 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 1706/22 Sebahat TUNCEL against Türkiye lodged on 29 December 2021 communicated on 14 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a politician who was elected as a member of the Turkish Parliament following the legislative elections in 2007 and 2011. She was co-president of the Democratic Regions’ Party ( Demokratik Bölgeler Partisi , “the DBP”) at the time of the events giving rise to the present application. On 6 November 2016 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention by the Diyarbakır 2nd Magistrate’s Court within the context of a criminal investigation initiated against the applicant on numerous charges related to “the events of 6-8 October 2014” (see Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no.   2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 17-27, 22 December 2020). The applicant’s individual application (no. 82956/17), lodged in 2017, concerning her initial and prolonged detention on remand within the scope of that criminal investigation was communicated to the Government on 12 June 2023 and is still pending before the Court. On 12 October 2020, while the applicant was still in pre-trial detention in the context of the above criminal investigation, the Ankara 5th Magistrate’s Court decided to place her in pre-trial detention within the scope of another criminal investigation initiated against her in 2014 on the basis of the same events. On 2 July 2021 both proceedings were joined before the Ankara 22nd   Assize Court due to their legal and factual links. On 13 April 2022 the Constitutional Court examined the applicant’s complaint concerning the lawfulness of her pre-trial detention ordered by the Ankara 5th Magistrate’s Court and declared it inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. Relying on Articles 5, 10 and 18 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the domestic courts ordered her initial and continued pre-trial detention on account of her legal and political activities and without a reasonable suspicion that she had committed an offence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can the applicant be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion” that she 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)? Was the evidence that was available in the file at the time of the applicant’s pre-trial detention sufficient to satisfy an objective observer that she may have committed the offences attributed to her (see Mergen and Others v.   Turkey , nos. 44062/09 and 4 others, §§ 46-55, 31 May 2016, and Ayşe Yüksel and Others v. Turkey , nos. 55835/09 and 2 others, §§   51-60, 31   May 2016)?   2.     Did the magistrates who ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention fulfil their obligation under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention to provide relevant and sufficient grounds in support of the deprivation of liberty in question (see, in particular, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no.   23755/07, §§ 84-102, 5 July 2016)?   3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective remedy before the Constitutional Court, by which the lawfulness of her detention could be determined speedily, and her release ordered if necessary, as required by Article   5 § 4 of the Convention (see Khokhlov v. Cyprus , no.   53114/20, §§   72 ‑ 83, 13 June 2023, and the case-law cited therein)?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, on account of her pre ‑ trial detention and the criminal proceedings brought against her? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 (see, mutatis mutandis ,   Nedim Şener v.   Turkey , no.   38270/11, §§   92 ‑ 119, 8 July 2014, and Lütfiye Zengin and Others v.   Turkey , no. 36443/06, §§ 44-58, 14 April 2015)?   5.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than that envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention (see Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , no. 69981/14, §§   153-163, 17   March 2016)?   The Government are invited to submit a copy of the investigation file in so far as it concerns the applicant and all documents in the file relating to criminal case brought against her.