CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA38CC292 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sE446CB87 { width:102.18%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF038B56D { width:7.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2579E310 { width:41.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD1294CB { width:15.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDAEAA0DD { width:18.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s250CDE24 { width:17%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s83C0F899 { width:7.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s8E93697E { width:41.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFCA6A27E { width:15.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s45CE56F4 { width:18.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s820C353E { width:17%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 16 June 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 46683/15 Ertan ERÇIKTI and Others against Türkiye lodged on 11 September 2015 communicated on 26 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of speediness of the Constitutional Court in the review proceedings concerning the applicants’ pre-trial detention ordered in 2014. It further pertains to the alleged (i) lack of relevant and sufficient grounds in the decisions ordering and prolonging the pre-trial detention of some of the applicants, and (ii) the excessive length of these applicants’ pre-trial detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. All the applicants are former police officers who were placed in pre-trial detention on terrorism-related charges in 2014 and 2015. They lodged numerous individual applications with the Constitutional Court upon non-execution of the decisions to release them ordered by the Istanbul 32nd Criminal Court of First Instance (see, for further information on the incident, Başer and Özçelik v. Türkiye , nos. 30694/15 and   30803/15, §§   8-30, 13 September 2022). In 2018, 2019 and 2020 the Constitutional Court declared their individual applications inadmissible.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have at their disposal a remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their pre-trial detention, as required by Article   5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy before the Constitutional Court, by which the lawfulness of their detention could be determined speedily, and their release ordered if necessary (see   Khokhlov v. Cyprus , no.   53114/20, §§   72 ‑ 83, 13 June 2023, and the case-law cited therein)? 2.     Except for the second, third, seventh, fourteenth, fifteenth and eighteenth applicants, did the magistrates who ordered the applicants’ initial and continued 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? In addition, was the length of these applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, in particular, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84 ‑ 102, 5   July 2016)?   APPENDIX Application no. 46683/15   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Ertan ERÇIKTI 1971 Turkish Istanbul 2. Osman Özgür AÇIKGÖZ 1975 Turkish Istanbul 3. Ali Fuat ALTUNTAŞ 1992 Turkish Istanbul 4. Necati ARSLAN 1985 Turkish Istanbul 5. Gafur ATAÇ 1979 Turkish Tekirdağ 6. Yurt ATAYÜN 1969 Turkish Istanbul 7. Serdar BAYRAKTUTAN 1973 Turkish Istanbul 8. Oğuzhan CEYLAN 1978 Turkish Istanbul 9. Ensar DOĞAN 1989 Turkish Istanbul 10. Serhat Taner DOĞAN 1985 Turkish Istanbul 11. Kürşat DURMUŞ 1977 Turkish Istanbul 12. Mehmet IŞIK 1983 Turkish Istanbul 13. Muhammed KAYA 1982 Turkish Istanbul 14. Aytekin KOÇAK 1988 Turkish Istanbul 15. Erhan KÖRTEK 1986 Turkish Istanbul 16. Ömer KÖSE 1971 Turkish Istanbul 17. Erkan ÜNAL 1983 Turkish Antalya 18. Yunusemre UZUNOĞLU 1986 Turkish İzmir 19. Selman YUYUCU 1986 Turkish Kocaeli