CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2025

.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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } Published on 31 March 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31686/19 Durmuş Selman DEMİRSOY against Türkiye and 6 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 12 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications mainly concern the applicants’ arrest and pre-trial detention 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, as well as the conditions of their detention. Invoking Articles 3 and 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, all applicants complain of inadequate conditions of detention, in particular of the lack of sufficient personal space in the multi-occupancy units that they were held in, and also allege that they were detained in the absence of any suspicion that they had committed an offence. Moreover, some applicants further invoke Article   5 §§   3 and 4 of the Convention, claiming that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their initial and/or continued pre-trial detention, that the length of their pre-trial detention was excessive, that the reviews of detention took place without a hearing and they were not notified of the opinion of the public prosecutor on those reviews, that their access to the investigation files was restricted, that 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 –, and that the objections to their detention or their requests for release were not examined or examined belatedly (see the appended table for detailed information as to the specific complaints raised by each of the applicants). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the conditions of the applicants’ detention, in particular, the personal space in view of the number of prisoners placed in the same multi-occupancy units, amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§   136-140, 20   October 2016, and İlerde and Others v.   Türkiye , nos.   35614/19 and 10   others, §§ 169-199, 5 December 2023)?   The Government are requested to provide the Court with information regarding the floor space that was made available to the applicants in the various prison cells that they were detained in, by specifying the respective periods of their detention in accordance with the methodology set out in the Court’s İlerde and Others judgment (ibid, §§ 173-176) .   2.     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 v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, § 185, 3   March 2020)?   3.     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?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective 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)     they had not had effective legal assistance or facilities to challenge their detention, having particular regard to the fact that their communication with their lawyers had been monitored (see, mutatis mutandis , Černák v.   Slovakia , no.   36997/08, § 78, 17 December 2013).   5.     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 any of the applicants’ complaints?   APPENDIX   List of cases:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Complaints 1. 31686/19 Demirsoy v. Türkiye 10/06/2019 Durmuş Selman DEMİRSOY 1987 Kocaeli Turkish Demirsoy ZEYNEP Conditions of detention Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 2. 42484/19 Özerbaş v. Türkiye 30/07/2019 Muhammet Nuri ÖZERBAŞ 1987 Yalova Turkish   Conditions of detention 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 3. 44996/19 Pirim v. Türkiye 09/08/2019 Yasin PİRİM 1981 İzmir Turkish   Conditions of detention Lack of reasonable suspicion   6077/20 Birlik v. Türkiye 09/01/2020 Kader Gülnaz BİRLİK 1983 Istanbul Turkish Kadriye TÜMEN Conditions of detention 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 Monitoring of lawyer-client meetings 5. 37623/20 Türk v. Türkiye 26/08/2020 Musa TÜRK 1962 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Ramazan DANIŞMAN Conditions of detention 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 6. 38361/20 Özdemir v. Türkiye 28/08/2020 Burhan ÖZDEMİR 1984 Karabük Turkish Hasan TOK Conditions of detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 7. 52057/20 Simşek v. Türkiye 10/11/2020 Akif ŞİMŞEK 1982 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK Conditions of detention Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention