CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 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 } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sC5106CDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 16 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25347/18 Erol KÖKÇÜ against Türkiye and 29 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 29 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants, on suspicion of being involved in the attempted coup d’état that took place on 15 July 2016 and membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY (“Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). At the material time, most of the applicants were serving in the army as senior army officers, field officers or private soldiers. Some of the applicants were serving or former police officers. 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): -     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 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. 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 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, 5   July 2016)?   (ii).     Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   2.     (a)     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 the complaints concerning (i)   the lack of an oral hearing during the review of detention; (ii) the non-notification or belated notification of the detention decision (compare, for example, Hebat Aslan and Firas Aslan v. Turkey , no.   15048/09, §§   92-93, 28 October 2014)?   (b)     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 v. Turkey , no.   66448/17, §§   212-214, 3 March 2020, 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)     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);   (iv)     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).         APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Complaints 1. 25347/18 Kökçü v. Türkiye 15/05/2018 Erol KÖKÇÜ 1975 Kocaeli Turkish   Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 2. 14217/19 Aydoğan v. Türkiye 28/02/2019 Çetin AYDOĞAN 1974 Ankara Turkish Demet REÇBER ÖZTÜRK Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 3. 16581/19 Keskin v. Türkiye 21/02/2019 Kemal KESKİN 1982 Trabzon Turkish   Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 4. 20311/19 Topalca v. Türkiye 25/03/2019 Ahmet Serdar TOPALCA 1976 Istanbul Turkish Casim YILMAZ Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 5. 32678/20 Horoz v. Türkiye 21/07/2020 Recep HOROZ 1983 Istanbul Turkish Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 6. 35532/20 Toprak v. Türkiye 12/08/2020 Hamza TOPRAK 1987 Ankara Turkish Melike ÖNAL TOPRAK 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 7. 36985/20 Durgunlu v. Türkiye 10/08/2020 Emre DURGUNLU 1988 Ankara Turkish   Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 8. 42448/20 Baran v. Türkiye 16/09/2020 Selim BARAN 1980 Ankara Turkish Melike ÖNAL TOPRAK Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 9. 46363/20 Oğuz v. Türkiye 14/10/2020 Ahmet Tamer OĞUZ 1980 Ankara Turkish Melike ÖNAL TOPRAK 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 10. 46590/20 Karataş v. Türkiye 02/10/2020 Murat KARATAŞ 1987 Mersin Turkish   Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 11. 50911/20 Özdemir v. Türkiye 03/11/2020 Ahmet ÖZDEMİR 1977 Ankara Turkish   Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 12. 51834/20 Ünlü v. Türkiye 24/07/2020 Osman ÜNLÜ 1958 Ankara Turkish Ayşe ÖZDEMIRCIOĞLU Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 13. 52109/20 İmrenk v. Türkiye 03/11/2020 Semih Burak İMRENK 1994 Istanbul Turkish Hasan Huseyin KOCATURK Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 14. 28472/21 Birel v. Türkiye 17/05/2021 İlker BIREL 1976 Samsun Turkish Mustafa BİREL 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 15. 14031/22 Sandık v. Türkiye 14/03/2022 Abdullah Emre SANDIK 1988 Konya Turkish Mehmet Ertuğrul TÜTÜNCÜ Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 16. 22848/22 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 27/04/2022 Necip YILMAZ 1964 Ankara Turkish Serap YILMAZ Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 17. 30378/22 Türk v. Türkiye 27/05/2022 Ahmet Ali TÜRK 1983 Istanbul Turkish   Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 18. 43823/22 Tosun v. Türkiye 23/08/2022 Selim TOSUN 1990 Kütahya Turkish   Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 19. 47579/22 Hacıpaşalıoğlu v. Türkiye 29/09/2022 Fatih HACIPAŞALIOĞLU 1984 Ankara Turkish Fatma HACIPAŞALIOĞLU 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 Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 20. 3010/23 Erken v. Türkiye 15/12/2022 Adem ERKEN 1986 Samsun Turkish   Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention 21. 9909/23 Yayla v. Türkiye 06/02/2023 Murat YAYLA 1978 Kirikkale Turkish Tuğba YAYLA Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 22. 37743/23 Hediye v. Türkiye 18/08/2023 Murat HEDİYE 1987 Denizli Turkish   Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 23. 41659/23 Deniz v. Türkiye 01/11/2023 Furkan DENİZ 1996 Istanbul Turkish Sumru AKTAŞ ALBAY Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention 24. 816/24 Dündar v. Türkiye 29/11/2023 Emre DÜNDAR 1986 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Yasin BEL Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 25. 3393/24 Özcan v. Türkiye 31/01/2024 Alican ÖZCAN 1972 Diyarbakır Turkish Zeynep UZUNALİ Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention 26. 5006/24 Kayabası v. Türkiye 12/02/2024 Süleyman KAYABAŞI 1986 İzmir Turkish Zeynep UZUNALİ Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 27. 6150/24 Altıntaş v. Türkiye 13/02/2024 Mehmet ALTINTAŞ 1985 Sakarya Turkish   Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention 28. 6161/24 Peker v. Türkiye 13/02/2024 Murat PEKER 1977 Balıkesir Turkish   Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention 29. 6222/24 Yıldız v. Türkiye 13/02/2024 Levent YILDIZ 1978 Sakarya Turkish   Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention 30. 6240/24 Gündoğdu v. Türkiye 13/02/2024 Rıdvan GÜNDOĞDU 1989 İzmir Turkish   Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention