CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 février 2026

.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 23 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 8296/22 Yakup DALKILIÇ against Türkiye lodged on 13 January 2022 communicated on 6 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ failure to examine the applicant’s requests for release. On 25 October 2018 the applicant was convicted for being a member of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” ( Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması , “the FETÖ/PDY”). His detention was prolonged in the same judgment. During the appeal proceedings before the 16th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the applicant lodged requests for release, which, according to him, were not examined by that court. On 28 December 2021 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints under Article 5 of the Convention inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. Relying on Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his requests for release during the appeal process were not examined by the Court of Cassation.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the guarantees of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention applicable to the procedure for the appeal review of the applicant’s post-conviction detention (see Stollenwerk v. Germany , no. 8844/12, §§   35-37, 7   September 2017, with further references; and Yılmaz Aydemir v.   Türkiye , no.   61808/19, §§ 36-41, 23 May 2023)?   2.     If so, did the applicant have an effective remedy at his disposal to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was there a violation of Article 5 § 4 due to the applicant’s inability to obtain a judicial review of the lawfulness of his post-conviction detention during the appeal process (see, mutatis mutandis , Zakshevskiy v. Ukraine , no. 7193/04, §§   89-96, 17   March 2016)?