CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super }   Communicated on 18 September 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27135/09 Şemsettin İNCE against Turkey lodged on 24 April 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the applicant’s inability to appear before a court for twenty-one days during his pre-trial detention, and the dismissal of his objection filed against the detention order by the appeal court on the basis of the public prosecutor’s written opinion that had not been communicated to the applicant or to his representative. The applicant further complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention about the lack of compensation under domestic law. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the fact that the applicant was denied appearance before a judge between 28 November 2008 (the date on which he was placed in detention on remand) and 19 December 2008 (the date on which his objection against his pre-trial detention was dismissed by the Istanbul Assize Court), has there been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? 2.     Was the non-communication of the opinion of the public prosecutor during the proceedings before the 9 th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court in conformity with the principle of equality of arms foreseen by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? 2.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?