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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEEDDF177 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE2D594D1 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s1536B7BA { margin-left:36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sA74B0776 { height:56.9pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 7 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31686/17 Levent KAYA against Türkiye and 53 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 17 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants, who are all Turkish nationals, 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”). Some of the applicants were judges or prosecutors at the material time. 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): -     They were apprehended outside of Turkish territory by individuals purported to be Turkish agents and subsequently held in incommunicado detention until their eventual transfer to Türkiye; -     They were detained in the absence of any suspicion that they committed an offence; -     They had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them; -     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 magistrates’ courts who ruled on their pre-trial detention lacked independence and impartiality; -     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 objections to their pre-trial detention or their requests for release were not examined or examined belatedly; -     The objections to their detention after conviction or their requests for release were not examined or examined belatedly by the appeal courts or the Court of Cassation; -     The decisions extending their detention were not notified to them, or were notified with a delay, which prevented them from appealing against those decisions; -     The time taken by the Constitutional Court to conduct its examination of their individual applications was excessive. The applicant in application no. 45757/20 further alleges that he was subjected to treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention by Turkish agents during his alleged period of incommunicado detention outside of Turkish territory. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions pertaining to application no. 45757/20 1.     (a)     Did the applicant exhaust all effective domestic remedies concerning his complaints raised under Article 3, as required by Article 35 §   1 of the Convention? (b)     Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? (c)     Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see   Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), has an effective investigation been carried out by the domestic authorities in a manner compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? Questions pertaining only to applications nos. 21255/19, 46982/19, 45757/20, 47151/20, 48776/20 and 6428/22 Question on the facts 2.     Do the facts of the cases demonstrate a jurisdictional link between Türkiye and the applicants for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention by virtue of Türkiye, through its agents, exercising authority and control over the individuals in question (compare Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, §§ 133-137 and 149-150, ECHR 2011)? Questions on the law 3.     Was the applicants’ apprehension outside of Turkish territory by Turkish agents: (a)     “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and based on any judicial or administrative decision (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§   230-233, ECHR   2012, and   Al-Hawsawi v. Lithuania , no. 6383/17, §§   223-225, 16   January 2024 and the case-law cited therein)? (b)     based on any extradition proceedings? The Government are requested to provide copies of all documents and information pertaining to any extradition proceedings initiated against the aforementioned applicants. 4.     Were the applicants informed promptly, in a language which they understood, of the reasons for their apprehension and the charges against them, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention? If so, on what date did this occur ( see Grubnyk v. Ukraine , no. 58444/15, §§   97   and   99, 17   September 2020, and Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no.   46221/99 , 14   December 2000)? 5.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty pending their transfer to Türkiye, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Moustahi v. France , no.   9347/14, §§ 103-104, 25 June 2020)? Questions pertaining to applications nos. 31686/17 and 7685/20 6.     Did the applicants exhaust all available and effective domestic remedies regarding their complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention, as required by Article 35 § 1, in particular, considering the Turkish Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the statutory thirty-day time-limit and the formal requirements imposed for the admissibility of the applicants’ individual applications (see, for general principles, mutatis mutandis , Üçdağ v.   Turkey , no. 23314/19 , § 38, 31   August 2021 and the cases cited therein)? Questions pertaining to the applications on the basis of the complaints communicated in accordance with the list in the Appendix 7.     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)? 8.     (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? 9.     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: (a)     the magistrates’ courts called upon to decide on the applicants’ pre-trial detention lacked independence and impartiality, particularly given the alleged links between the judges and the prosecution authorities involved in the proceedings (see, for example, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no.   17056/06, §§   93-99, ECHR 2009, and Baş , cited above, §§ 266-267); (b)     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); (c)     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); (d)     their objections to their pre-trial detention had not been examined or had been examined belatedly (see, for example, Shannon v.   Latvia , no.   32214/03, §§ 67-74, 24 November 2009); (e)     their objections to their post-conviction detention had not been examined or had been examined belatedly (see, for example, Stollenwerk v.   Germany , no.   8844/12, § 36, 7 September 2017; Filat v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   11657/16, §§ 23-36, 7 December 2021; and Yılmaz Aydemir v.   Türkiye , no.   61808/19, §§ 36-37, 23 May 2023). (f)     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); (g)     the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine their individual applications had been excessive (compare for the relevant principles Kavala v.   Turkey , no. 28749/18, §§ 181-184, 10 December 2019); 10.     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 complaints concerning (i)   the lack of an oral hearing during the review of detention; (ii) the restriction of access to the investigation file; (iii) the non‑notification or belated notification of the detention decision; (iv) the delay in the examination of the objection against detention by the magistrates’ courts; (v) the failure to/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention and (vi) the lack of or delay in the examination of the objection against post-conviction detention by the appeal courts or the Court of Cassation (compare, for example, Hebat Aslan and Firas Aslan v. Turkey , no. 15048/09, §§ 92-93, 28 October 2014)? For each of the above questions, the parties are requested to provide all the necessary details, supported by relevant documents from the domestic files .   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence   Represented by Complaints   31686/17 Kaya v. Türkiye 19/04/2017 Levent KAYA 1975 Amasya   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   54122/18 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 24/10/2018 Dursun YILMAZ 1969 Kırşehir   Lale KARADAŞ Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   21255/19 Karaman v. Türkiye 12/04/2019 Turgay KARAMAN 1974 Denizli İrem GÜNEŞ Illegal rendition and incommunicado detention Lack of information on the reasons for arrest Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court   43427/19 Aktosun v. Türkiye 05/08/2019 Murat Can AKTOSUN 1991 Bursa Mustafa SAĞSÖZ Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   46982/19 Karabina v. Türkiye 19/08/2019 Yusuf KARABİNA 1974 Istanbul Fatih ŞAHİNLER Illegal rendition and incommunicado detention Lack of information on the reasons for arrest   49437/19 Almacı v. Türkiye 11/09/2019 Mesut ALMACI 1989 Ankara   Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention Lack of independence and impartiality of the domestic courts Lack of hearing during the detention review     53196/19 Bilgen v. Türkiye 23/08/2019 Rasim İsa BİLGEN 1968 Kocaeli Hacer ŞAHİN Lack of reasonable suspicion Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during pre-trial detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court   53302/19 Güngör v. Türkiye 20/09/2019 Ali Önder GÜNGÖR 1980 Adana   Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention Lack of independence and impartiality of the domestic courts Lack of hearing during the detention review Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court   57420/19 Gül v. Türkiye 24/10/2019 Enver GÜL 1970 Hatay Dudu ERTUNÇ Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   58950/19 Altan v. Türkiye 31/10/2019 Alparslan ALTAN 1968 Kırıkkale Mehmet ORAK Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   1098/20 Akca v. Türkiye 20/12/2019 Mustafa Ali AKCA 1986 Manisa   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   5779/20 Yıldız v. Türkiye 05/11/2019 Enes YILDIZ 1988 Manisa   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   7685/20 Girgin v. Türkiye 20/01/2020 Ali Ulvi GİRGİN 1981 Balıkesir Emre AKARYILDIZ Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review   10840/20 Çıngı v. Türkiye 07/02/2020 Devlet ÇINGI 1974 Kırşehir Kadir ÖZTÜRK Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   14971/20 Yirik v. Türkiye 02/03/2020 Şevket YİRİK 1983 Kocaeli   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention     16926/20 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 31/03/2020 Resül YILDIRIM 1969 Istanbul Mehmet ÖNCÜ Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention     36818/20 Büyükelyas v.   Türkiye 17/08/2020 Kemal BÜYÜKELYAS 1959 Denizli Tarık AVŞAR Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   43482/20 Evgin v. Türkiye 07/09/2020 Coșkun EVGİN 1980 Antalya   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   43982/20 Okur Yirik v.   Türkiye 02/09/2020 Aslıhan OKUR YİRİK 1984 Gebze Şevket YİRİK Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   45757/20 Erdem v. Türkiye 06/10/2020 Mustafa ERDEM 1974 Istanbul Fatif ŞAHİNLER Ill-treatment during incommunicado detention Illegal rendition and incommunicado detention Lack of information on the reasons for arrest Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention   47151/20 Özpınar v. Türkiye 15/10/2020 Osman ÖZPINAR 1972 Istanbul Barış ÇELİK Illegal rendition and incommunicado detention Lack of information on the reasons for arrest Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file     48776/20 Karakaya v. Türkiye 30/10/2020 Osman KARAKAYA 1972 Istanbul Fatih ŞAHİNLER Illegal rendition and incommunicado detention Lack of information on the reasons for arrest Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court   52269/20 Piri v. Türkiye 05/11/2020 Özcan PİRİ 1979 Çankırı   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   53360/20 Kırım v. Türkiye 19/11/2020 Cemil KIRIM 1979 Karabük   Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   54428/20 Çığır v. Türkiye 16/06/2020 Ali ÇIĞIR 1971 Konya   Lack of reasonable suspicion Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention     54842/20 Celepoğlu v.   Türkiye 16/10/2020 Hamza CELEPOĞLU 1969 Ankara Hasan TOK Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   55354/20 Kocabaş v. Türkiye 26/11/2020 Doğan KOCABAŞ 1993 Manisa   Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   1983/21 Atlar v. Türkiye 22/12/2020 Yusuf ATLAR 1983 Hatay   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   8860/21 Ceylan v. Türkiye 22/10/2020 Nadir CEYLAN 1974 Konya   Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   8892/21 Demirkapı v.   Türkiye 28/01/2021 Cuma DEMİRKAPI 1986 Kocaeli Ebru DEMİRKAPI Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   9928/21 Karakuş v. Türkiye 29/01/2021 Bilal KARAKUŞ 1973 Balıkesir   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   10689/21 Demiray v. Türkiye 03/02/2021 Kemal DEMİRAY 1971 Çorum   Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention     14676/21 Arpacı v. Türkiye 28/07/2020 İsmail ARPACI 1982 Elazığ   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention     15927/21 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 02/03/2021 Tahsin YILDIRIM 1976 Kırıkkale   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention     20078/21 Karakaya v. Türkiye 06/04/2021 Halil KARAKAYA 1977 Afyonkarahisar   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention     24416/21 Vardar and Kara v.   Türkiye 22/03/2021 Engin VARDAR 1985 Adana Gökhan KARA 1986 Elazığ   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention     32988/21 Yuyucu v. Türkiye 04/06/2021 Selman YUYUCU 1986 Kocaeli   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   36653/21 Emrem v. Türkiye 02/07/2021 Faruk EMREM 1976 Istanbul   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   56345/21 Öztürk v. Türkiye 12/11/2021 Özkan ÖZTÜRK 1981 Ankara   Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   57881/21 Tavla v. Türkiye 19/11/2021 Kemal TAVLA 1984 Çankırı   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   2558/22 Efeoğlu v. Türkiye 24/12/2021 Beycan EFEOĞLU 1976 Bursa   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   6428/22 Eker v. Türkiye 21/01/2022 İbrahim EKER 1972 İzmir Kübra GÜLAÇTI Illegal rendition and incommunicado detention Lack of information on the reasons for arrest Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention   13406/22 Gül v. Türkiye 03/03/2022 Selami GÜL 1989 Istanbul   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   16556/22 Yıldız v. Türkiye 23/03/2022 Hıdır YILDIZ 1974 Isparta   Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   17526/22 Bişer v. Türkiye 25/03/2022 Levent BİŞER 1976 Afyonkarahisar Dudu ERTUNÇ Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   25708/22 Sağlam v. Türkiye 05/04/2022 Ali SAĞLAM 1985 Adana   Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention   25884/22 Canpolat v. Türkiye 13/04/2022 Turan CANPOLAT 1968 Elazığ Muhammed CANPOLAT Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention     38546/22 Artun v. Türkiye 20/07/2022 Ramazan ARTUN 1973 Kocaeli   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   41008/22 Akdemir v. Türkiye 29/07/2022 Adnan AKDEMİR 1975 Ankara   Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   49529/22 Karataş v. Türkiye 07/10/2022 Bekir KARATAŞ 1974 Ankara Ayşe Süeda ÜNAL Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   3699/23 Taşcıoğlu v. Türkiye 03/01/2023 Ahmet TAŞCIOĞLU 1974 Yozgat   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   9214/23 Aydoğmuş v.   Türkiye 23/01/2023 Murat AYDOĞMUŞ 1985 Ankara   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   19101/23 Gök v. Türkiye 13/04/2023 Bilal GÖK 1984 Ankara   Mehmet KOYUNCU Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention   40930/23 Erdem v. Türkiye 08/11/2023 Erdoğan ERDEM 1966 Erzurum   Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention