CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 13 April 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 37204/25 Ekrem İMAMOĞLU against Türkiye lodged on 10 November 2025 communicated on 23 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s pre-trial detention on suspicion of establishing and leading a criminal organisation, accepting bribes, interfering with public tenders and unlawfully obtaining personal data. The applicant is a well-known politician and a member of the main opposition party, namely the Republican People’s Party ( Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi ). He was elected Mayor of Istanbul in the local elections held in 2019 and was re-elected in 2024. At the time of the circumstances giving rise to the present application, he was serving his term of office as the Mayor of Istanbul and had been designated as a candidate in the forthcoming presidential elections. On 19 March 2025, in the context of a criminal investigation, the applicant’s residence was searched by police officers. On the same day, he was taken into police custody. Subsequently, a confidentiality order was imposed on the investigation file. The applicant’s objection to that order remains pending. During his police custody, the applicant was questioned on several occasions, in particular in connection with allegations of establishing and leading a criminal organisation. On 23 March 2025 he was brought before the Istanbul 10th Magistrate’s Court, which ordered his pre-trial detention on the above-mentioned charges. He was, however, released in relation to the allegation of aiding an armed terrorist organisation. On 7 April 2025 the applicant lodged an objection against the detention order. On 11 April 2025 the Criminal Court of First Instance dismissed that objection. On 18 April 2025, in the context of a periodic review of detention, the magistrate decided to maintain the applicant in pre-trial detention. On 30   April 2025 the Criminal Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s objection against the continuation of his detention. In the subsequent periodic reviews, the competent judicial authorities ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention. The applicant’s related objections were dismissed accordingly. On 13 May 2025 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Turkish Constitutional Court, raising substantially the same complaints as those submitted to the Court. At the time of the introduction of the present application, that individual application was still pending before the Turkish Constitutional Court. Before the Court, the applicant complains of violations of Article   5 §§   1   (c), 3 and 4 and Article 18 of the Convention, as well as of Article 3 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the applicant argues that there is no evidence in the case file capable of establishing a reasonable suspicion against him. With reference to Article 5 § 3, he submits that the detention order, the periodic detention reviews ordering the continuation of his detention, and the decisions dismissing his objections were based on stereotyped and formulaic reasoning, without an individualised and concrete assessment of his situation. He further alleges that his pre-trial detention is of an unreasonable length. He also maintains that the competent judicial authorities failed to carry out an effective review of the lawfulness of his detention. As regards Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was unable to challenge effectively the lawfulness of his detention, as access to the investigation file was restricted. He further argues, under the same provision, that the Constitutional Court failed to examine his individual application with the required promptness. He further alleges, under Article 18 of the Convention, that he was placed in pre-trial detention for political purposes after having announced his candidacy for the presidential elections. Finally, relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant maintains that the institution of criminal proceedings against him and his pre-trial detention, allegedly pursued for political purposes, prevented him from conducting an active campaign for the presidential elections and placed him at a disadvantage, thereby constituting a serious interference with his right to free elections.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant exhaust all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of his application (see, for the general principles, Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25   March 2014)?   2.     Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can the applicant be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion” that he had committed an offence, within the meaning of Article   5 §   1   (c) of the Convention (see, in particular, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v.   the   United Kingdom , 30 August 1990, § 32, Series A no. 182)? Was the evidence that was available in the file at the time of the applicant’s pre-trial detention sufficient to satisfy an objective observer that he may have committed the offences attributed to him (see Mergen and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   44062/09 and 4 others, §§ 46-55, 31 May 2016, and Yüksel and Others v.   Turkey , nos. 55835/09 and 2 others, §§ 51-60, 31   May 2016)?   3.     Did the magistrates who ordered the applicant’s 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? Furthermore, was the length of the applicant’s 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)?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal a remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Had the applicant been unable to challenge effectively his detention because of the restriction imposed on his access to the investigation file (see Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 14332/17 and 12   others, §§   573-79, 8 November 2022, with further references)?   (b)     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy before the Constitutional Court, by which the lawfulness of his detention could be determined speedily, and his release ordered if necessary (see Khokhlov v.   Cyprus , no. 53114/20, §§ 72‑83, 13 June 2023, and the case-law cited therein)?   5.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than that envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention (see Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , no. 69981/14, §§   153-163, 17   March 2016, and Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no.   14305/17, §§ 421-438, 22   December 2020)?   6.     Is Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention applicable regarding the alleged restrictions on the applicant’s participation in the presidential elections (see, for the general principles, Brito da Silva Guerra and de Sousa Magno v. Portugal (dec.), nos. 26712/06 and 26720/06, 17 June 2008, with further references)? Did the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant and the applicant’s pre-trial detention, allegedly imposed for political purposes, prevent him from exercising his right to stand for election and to participate effectively in the electoral process, in breach of Article   3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, for the general principles, Selahattin Demirtaş , cited above, §§   382-89)?   The Government are invited to submit a copy of the investigation file in so far as it concerns the applicant and all documents in the file relating to the criminal case brought against him.