CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s779CD28D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B41F706 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s57F1263A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC65BD73A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; line-height:12pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBBB64387 { text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sACBB7403 { width:6.79pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sBA59B8E7 { width:0.12pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } Published on 19 January 2026   GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF KAVALA v. TÜRKİYE (No. 2) (Application no. 2170/24) QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES        Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention?        Does the requirement of a “speedy” review under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention apply to the period following a first-instance conviction (see Yılmaz Aydemir v.   Türkiye , no.   61808/19, §§ 40-45, 23 May 2023; Stollenwerk v. Germany , no. 8844/12, § 36, 7   September 2017)? In that context, did the proceedings before the Constitutional Court by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention —whether pre ‑ trial and/or post-conviction— comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in particular the requirement of a “speedy” review?        Can the applicant’s detention following the Court’s judgment of 10   December 2019 ( Kavala v. Turkey , no. 28749/18, 10 December 2019) be regarded as an arbitrary deprivation of liberty incompatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?        Are the findings set out by the Court in Kavala v. Turkey (no.   28749/18, 10   December 2019) and Kavala v. Türkiye (infringement proceedings) ([GC], no.   28749/18, 11 July 2022) relevant for the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the fairness of the proceedings before the domestic courts? If so, did those courts sufficiently take those findings into account and conduct a particularly careful examination of the facts imputed to the applicant, as examined in the context of the two aforementioned judgments (see, mutatis mutandis, Ilgar Mammadov v.   Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, §§ 198-203, 16 November 2017)?        Did the proceedings as a whole afford the applicant a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, within the meaning of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention, having regard, in particular, to the right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the principle of equality of arms and the rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos.   35485/05 and three others, §§   196 ‑ 213, 26 July 2011, and, mutatis mutandis, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no.   36658/05, §§ 158 et seq., 18   December 2018)?        Was the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention respected in the present case?        Did the acts of which the applicant was convicted constitute the criminal offence of attempting “by force and violence to overthrow the Government of the Republic of Türkiye or to prevent it, in whole or in part, from carrying out its duties”, under Article   312 of the Turkish Criminal Code, as required by Article 7 of the Convention?        Was there an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression and/or his freedom of association and peaceful assembly within the meaning of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, and, if so, did that interference comply with the requirements of those provisions?        Were the applicants’ rights under the Convention provisions cited in the questions above restricted for a purpose other than those provided for in the Convention and thus in contravention of Article 18?   Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention?