CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juillet 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 } Published on 4 August 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 58066/17 Emrah BİÇER against Türkiye lodged on 30 May 2017 communicated on 15 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s pre-trial detention on charges of being a member of an armed terrorist organisation. The applicant alleges that the magistrate Z.Ö. who ordered his pre-trial detention was not impartial, arguing that the public prosecutor who requested his pre-trial detention was the husband of the magistrate in question. He further alleges that his request for recusal was not duly examined by the domestic courts. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant placed in pre-trial detention by an independent and impartial “judge” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Nikolova v.   Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 49, ECHR 1999-II; Ali Osman Özmen v.   Turkey , no. 42969/04, §§ 70-81, 5 July 2016; and Hood v.   the   United Kingdom [GC], no. 27267/95, §§ 57-58, ECHR 1999-I)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure to have his challenge of judge Z.Ö. for bias examined by the domestic courts, as required by Article   5 § 4 or Article 5 § 3, taken alone or in conjunction with Article   13 of the Convention (see Nikolova , cited above, §§ 67-69; and, mutatis mutandis , Revtyuk v. Russia , no. 31796/10, §§ 21-29, 9 January 2018; and Kolesnikova v. Russia , no. 45202/14, §§ 57-58, 2 March 2021)?