CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 octobre 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } Published on 3 November 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 3846/22 Yiğit AKSAKOĞLU against Türkiye lodged on 14 December 2021 communicated on 13 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the judicial measure imposed on the applicant which prevented him to leave the country within the context of the criminal proceedings conducted against him. The applicant is a human rights activist, and the accusations against him were mainly related to his acts during the Gezi Park events occurred between May and September 2013 in Türkiye (for further information on the Gezi Park events, see Kavala v.   Turkey , no.   28749/18, §§ 15-22, 10   December 2019). On 17   November 2018 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempting to overthrow the Government or to prevent, through force and violence, the authorities from carrying out their functions under Article   312 of the Turkish Criminal Code. He filed numerous challenges against his detention in vain. On 18 February 2020 the Istanbul 30 th Assize Court acquitted the applicant from all the charges. Shortly afterwards, he moved to the Netherlands with his wife and children. On 3   December 2020 the First Section of the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been unlawful in the sense that there was no reasonable suspicion necessitating his pre-trial detention, and that his detention was ordered in the absence of relevant and sufficient reasons. Consequently, it found a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention. On 22   January 2021 the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal quashed the trial court’s judgment acquitting the applicant. On 28   January 2021 the Istanbul   30 th Assize Court imposed a judicial measure preventing him from leaving the country. In doing so, it briefly stated that there was a reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence, with no reference to any particular circumstances of the case. The applicant challenged the said decision, citing the Constitutional Court’s findings in its judgment of 3   December 2020. He also invoked the domestic provisions that permit the use of judicial measures in lieu of detention provided that there are relevant and sufficient reasons for detention. In that connection, the applicant argued that the measure did not comply with domestic law due to the absence of additional evidence in the case file, submitted particularly after the Constitutional Court’s finding of a lack of reasons for detention. The Istanbul 30 th Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objection in a summary fashion without responding to his particular claims. On 3   March 2022 the Constitutional Court found the applicant’s complaints under Article 5 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the Convention inadmissible for being incompatible ratione materiae and ratione personae , respectively. It also declared his complaints under Article   6 of the Convention about a lack of sufficient reasoning of the Assize Court’s decision regarding the imposition of the judicial measure preventing him from leaving the country, as well as several other complaints concerning the criminal proceedings inadmissible for non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies, particularly asserting that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending before the domestic courts. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant argues that the domestic courts’ decisions concerning the judicial measure imposed on him lacked sufficient reasons, in the sense that they failed to address his main arguments which were, in his view, decisive for the outcome. Relying on Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant further alleges that the judicial measure was imposed on him on account of his activities in non-governmental organisations such as taking part in the organisation of meetings in relation to the Gezi Park events. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing as regards the judicial measure ordered against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts properly address in its decisions the applicant’s arguments, in particular those referring to the findings of the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 3 December 2020, and provide sufficient reasoning within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( see, mutatis mutandis , De Tommaso v.   Italy [GC], no.   43395/09, §§ 151-155, 23 February 2017; Enea v.   Italy [GC], no.   74912/01, §§ 106-07, ECHR   2009; and Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos.   55391/13 and   2   others, § 185, 6 November 2018 )?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association as a result of the impugned judicial measure, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention taken alone or read in the light of Article 10 of the Convention (see   Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania   [GC], no.   37553/05, §§ 86, 91-102, 108 and 142-60, ECHR   2015 ; Kasparov v. Russia , no. 53659/07, §§   65-66, 11 October 2016)?