CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 } Published on 7 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15934/21 Murat ARSLAN against Türkiye lodged on 19 March 2021 communicated on 17 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the pre-trial detention of the applicant, a former auditor at the Court of Audit ( Sayıştay ) and the former chairman of the now-dissolved Association for the Union of Judges and Prosecutors (“YARSAV”). On 26 October 2016 the applicant was detained 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. The applicant mainly complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that he was detained in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that he committed an offence and that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his initial and/or continued pre-trial detention. Invoking Article 11 of the Convention, he further complains that his right to freedom of association was breached as a result of his detention aimed at silencing him as the former chairman of YARSAV. On 5 December 2019 the Constitutional Court, deciding in a committee formation, referred the applicant’s said complaints concerning the right to liberty and freedom of association to the section formation and dismissed, in a summary manner, the remainder of the applicant’s complaints. On 22 July 2020 the First Section of the Constitution Court considered these complaints solely from the perspective of the right to liberty and declared the applicant’s individual application inadmissible in a reasoned decision, where it addressed the applicant’s complaints and rejected them as being manifestly ill-founded by reference to its case-law. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion” that he 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 decision had been taken to detain the applicant (see, in particular, Baş v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, §   185, 3 March 2020)?   2.     (a) Did the applicant exhaust the remedies available in domestic law in relation to his complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? To the extent that the applicant’s complaint did not relate solely to the length of his pre ‑ trial detention but also concerned the alleged failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his 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 that complaint (see Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, § 213, 22 December 2020)? (b) Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, 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)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of his detention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and justified under the second paragraph of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis , Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey , no. 76521/12, §§ 109-153, 9 March 2021 and Taner   Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 2) , no. 208/18, §§ 129-158, 31 May 2022)?