CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 octobre 2020

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6983F43D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s36C5EC9D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.72pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.83pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s71EEDCF9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC79167A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB287A265 { margin-left:34.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.66pt; font-family:Arial } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sAFBE8422 { text-indent:18pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sF6399C73 { width:2.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD551674B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:18pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7C281E20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sCF51869D { margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:18pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2738E9BE { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1CC4DDC1 { margin-left:15.01pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:20.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9EAB97BC { width:11.94pt; display:inline-block } .s4FE92313 { margin-left:21.68pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:14.32pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s27A3FDF { width:25pt; display:inline-block } .s85125008 { margin-left:28.36pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.64pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s5FA9188C { width:28.53pt; display:inline-block } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 16 October 2020 Published on 2 November 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 73062/16 Murat ULUSOY against Turkey and 168 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Background of the cases 3.     During the night of 15 to 16 July 2016, a group of members of the Turkish armed forces calling themselves the “Peace at Home Council” attempted to carry out a military coup aimed at overthrowing the democratically installed Parliament, Government and President of Turkey. 4.     During the attempted coup, soldiers under the instigators’ control bombarded several strategic State buildings, including the parliament building and the presidential compound, attacked the hotel where the President was staying, and held the Chief of General Staff hostage. They also attacked television channels and fired shots at demonstrators. During the night of violence, more than 250 people were killed and more than 2,500   were injured. 5.     The day after the attempted military coup, the national authorities blamed the network linked to Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish citizen living in Pennsylvania (United States of America) and considered to be the leader of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY (“Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). Several criminal investigations were subsequently initiated by the appropriate prosecuting authorities in respect of suspected members of that organisation. 6.     On 16 July 2016, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors ( Hakimler ve Savcılar Kurulu – hereinafter “HSK”) suspended from office 2,735 judges and prosecutors, including some of the applicants, for a period of three months, pursuant to Article 77 § 1 and 81 § 1 of Law no. 2802. The HSK held that there were strong suspicions that the judges were members of the terrorist organisation that had undertaken the attempted coup d’état and that their remaining in office would undermine the proper conduct of the investigation and the authority and reputation of the judiciary. In doing so, the HSK relied on information and documents contained in investigation files transmitted to it before the attempted coup d’état, as well as on information obtained as a result of investigations carried out by the intelligence services. 7.     On 20 July 2016 the Government declared a state of emergency for a period of three months as from 21 July 2016; the state of emergency was subsequently extended for further periods of three months by the Council of Ministers, chaired by the President. 8.     On 21 July 2016 the Turkish authorities gave notice to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of derogation from the Convention under its Article   15. 9.     During the state of emergency, the Council of Ministers chaired by the President passed thirty-seven legislative decrees (nos. 667-703) under Article   121 of the Constitution. One of them, Legislative Decree no.   667, published in the Official Gazette on 23 July 2016, provided in particular, under its Article 3, that the HSK was authorised to dismiss any of its members who were considered to belong to or be affiliated or linked to terrorist organisations or organisations, structures or groups found by the National Security Council to have engaged in activities that were harmful to national security. The legislative decrees also placed significant restrictions on the procedural safeguards laid down in domestic law for anyone held in police custody or pre-trial detention (for example, extension of the period in which people could be held in police custody, and restrictions on access to case files and on the examination of objections against detention orders). 10.     On 10 August 2016 the HSK further suspended 648 magistrates from their posts for a period of three months, including some of the applicants, on the grounds that they belonged to, or were affiliated or linked to the FETÖ/PDY. 11.     By a decision of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 3 of Legislative decree no. 667, the HSK, meeting in plenary session, dismissed 2,847   judges, all of whom were considered to be members of or affiliated or linked to FETÖ/PDY. Then, by a decision of 31 August 2016, it dismissed 543 other judges for the same reason. The applicants were thus dismissed from their functions. 12.     On 18 July 2018 the state of emergency was lifted. Personal situation of the applicants (a)    The applicants’ arrest and pre-trial detention 13.     On 16 July 2016 the office for offences undermining the constitutional order of the Ankara prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation and notified all regional and departmental prosecutors. Acting within the framework of that investigation, the prosecutors initiated criminal investigations into the involvement, during or after the attempted coup   d’état , of persons linked with the FETÖ/PDY and of those not directly involved but having links with that organisation, including some members of the judiciary. 14.     The applicants were taken into police custody on various dates in the course of those investigations. At the end of their detention in police custody, they were brought before the magistrates’ courts, which ordered their detention on remand. The magistrates’ courts relied essentially on the fact that the applicants had been suspended from their functions by the HSK on the grounds that they were members of the organisation that had undertaken the coup d’état , and that the Ankara public prosecutor’s office had requested that an investigation be initiated into their involvement. The judges took into consideration the nature of the offence with which the applicants were charged, the evidence adduced and the potential penalty. They also noted that the investigations into the attempted coup d’état were being conducted nationwide, that statements had not been collected from all suspects, and that the offence with which they were charged was among the “catalogued” offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). The judges concluded that the applicants’ pre-trial detention appeared, at that stage, to be a proportionate measure. 15.     Objections lodged by the applicants against the detention decisions were dismissed by other magistrates’ courts, in similar terms to the first decisions. (b)    Decisions on the continuation of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the dismissal of their objections 16.     The applicants’ continued pre-trial detention was reviewed automatically pursuant to Article 108 of the CCP, which provides for a review every thirty days. The judges ruled on the applicants’ requests for release at the same time as the detention reviews, pursuant to Article   3, paragraph 1 (ç), of Legislative Decree no. 668. 17.     In most cases, the magistrates’ court ordered the continued pre-trial detention of the applicants, along with several other suspects. In their decisions, they essentially repeated the reasons given in the original detention decisions. They noted that a large proportion of those suspected of being members of FETÖ/PDY had fled and were still wanted. Taking into account the resources available to that organisation and its characteristics, the judges considered that there was a risk that the applicants might abscond, tamper with evidence and reoffend. The judges also stressed the seriousness of the offence with which the applicants were charged and the fact that not all the evidence had been collected yet. They concluded that the decisions to continue detention were in accordance with the information, documents and evidence contained in the investigation files. They added that given that there was still a clear and imminent danger associated with the attempted coup d’état , continued detention appeared to be a proportionate measure. They specified that since the suspects were former magistrates, there was a risk that they would try to influence or put pressure on the magistrates in office. 18.     In subsequent decisions on continued pre-trial detention, the magistrates’ courts also relied on the use of the ByLock encrypted messaging system by the persons concerned, and on witness statements. 19.     Objections lodged by the applicants were rejected by the magistrate’s courts, which relied on grounds similar to those indicated in their previous decisions. 20.     At the investigation stage, both applications for extension of the detention and objections to decisions to continue detention were examined on the basis of the case files, pursuant to Article 6, paragraph   1, subparagraph   1 of the Legislative Decree no. 667. 21.     On various dates, the first-instance courts convicted some of the applicants of membership of a terrorist organisation. The criminal proceedings against some of the applicants are still pending before the national courts. 22.     During the trial, the trial courts, ruling either at the end of the hearings or during reviews carried out between the hearings, ordered the applicants’ continued detention. Appeals lodged against those decisions were dismissed. (c)    Individual applications to the Constitutional Court 23.     The applicants each lodged one or more individual applications before the Constitutional Court. On different dates, the Constitutional Court declared the applications inadmissible. As can be seen from those decisions, the various complaints submitted by the applicants were declared inadmissible on the following grounds. 24.     With regard to the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention, the Constitutional Court noted that, according to the indictments and/or the investigation files, the applicants were users of ByLock. It considered that, given the characteristics of that application, its use or its download for use could be considered by the investigation authorities as evidence of a link with FETÖ/PDY. In this connection, it referred to its judgment in the case of Aydın Yavuz , delivered on 20 June 2017. The use of encryption by the applicants had been considered, depending on the circumstances of the case, as “strong evidence” that they had committed the offence of membership of FETÖ/PDY. Consequently, it could not be concluded that the investigating authorities or the courts that had decided on detention had taken an unfounded and arbitrary approach. In addition, taking into account the reasons given in the decisions on detention and the dismissal of objections, the Constitutional Court held that there were grounds for detention and that the measure was proportionate. It also considered the applicants’ grievances to be manifestly unfounded. As concerns some of the applicants, the Constitutional Court noted that the indictment and/or investigation files contained witness statements indicating that the applicants were members of FETÖ/PDY. They had therefore been detained on the basis of “reasonable grounds to suspect” that they had committed an offence. 25.     As regards the complaints that the magistrates’ courts were not independent and impartial, and that the examination of the appeals by another magistrates’ court had deprived the applicants of an effective remedy against the deprivation of liberty, the Constitutional Court noted that it had already examined those complaints in several cases. Having taken into consideration the structural characteristics of the magistrates’ courts, it had concluded that the complaints were manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court held that there was no reason to reach a different conclusion in the applicants’ cases. It also declared inadmissible the applicants’ complaints that the magistrates lacked knowledge of certain procedural guarantees, as well as their complaints that the magistrates’ courts had lacked jurisdiction to decide on detention, as manifestly ill ‑ founded. Given the nature of the offence with which the applicants were charged and the manner in which it had been committed, the Constitutional Court considered that it was appropriate to accept the ruling of the magistrates’ courts which had ordered the applicants’ detention, and found no error of assessment or arbitrariness. 26.     With regard to the absence of a hearing during the review of the detention decision, the Constitutional Court considered that there was no reason to depart from its landmark decision in the case of Aydın Yavuz , in which it had considered that the absence of a hearing during the review of the detention decision, lasting approximately nine months, had not violated the right to liberty and security. It therefore considered that those complaints were manifestly ill-founded. 27.     With regard to the restriction on access to the investigation file, the Constitutional Court considered, after examining the transcripts of the hearing, the decisions relating to the applicants’ detention, the objections against those decisions lodged by the applicants or their lawyers, and the documents and information contained in the investigation file, that the applicants had been informed of the elements that constituted the main ground for detention, that they had sufficient knowledge of their content and that they had been given the opportunity to challenge the decisions on their detention. It also found those grievances to be manifestly ill-founded. 28.     With regard to some of the applicants’ complaints regarding the conditions of solitary confinement the Constitutional Court declared them inadmissible on the grounds that they were manifestly ill-founded. 29.     The Constitutional Court did not examine an applicant’s complaint concerning the violation of the principle of equality of arms as a result of non-communication of the prosecutor’s written opinion during proceedings before the Assize Court (acting as the appeal court), before which the applicant contested some restrictions imposed by the prison authorities. 30.     With regard to the applicants’ complaints regarding the lawfulness and length of their police custody, based on its well-established case-law on the subject, the Constitutional Court declared those complaints inadmissible for failure to exhaust the compensation remedy provided for in Article   141 of the CCP. 31.     As to some of the applicants’ complaints regarding the lawfulness of the searches conducted by the authorities in their homes and/or offices, the Constitutional Court declared them inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court found that the damage suffered by the applicants was not more serious than unavoidable. 32.     With regard to an applicant’s complaint regarding the unlawful recording of his letters in the National Judicial Network Server (UYAP), the Constitutional Court held that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded. 33.     The Constitutional Court dismissed the complaints lodged by some of the applicants concerning the absence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicants having committed a criminal offence, lawfulness of the arrest, lack of an oral hearing, non-notification or belated notification of the detention decision, lack of or delay in the examination of the case by the magistrates’ courts, on the grounds that they had failed to use the compensation remedy provided for by Article 141 of the CCP. 34.     The Constitutional Court also dismissed the remaining complaints on the grounds that the applicants had not used the appropriate remedies. Relevant domestic law and practice 35.     The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in Alparslan Altan v.   Turkey (no. 12778/17, §§ 46-64, 16 April 2019) and Baş v.   Turkey , (no.   66448/18, §§ 52-104, 3 March 2020). COMPLAINTS 36.     The applicants complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention for the following reasons: - Some of the applicants claimed that they had been detained on remand in breach of the procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law for prosecutors and judges. - Some of the applicants complained that they had been held in detention in the absence of any suspicion that they had committed an offence and without relevant and sufficient grounds. - Some of the applicants complained that they had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them. - Some of the applicants claimed that the length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive. - Some of the applicants complained that the domestic courts had not held a hearing when reviewing their pre-trial detention, that they had not been notified of the opinion of the public prosecutor on those reviews and that their access to the investigation file had been restricted. - Some of the applicants complained that their release requests and objections had not been examined or had been examined belatedly. - Some of the applicants complained that the decisions to extend their detention had not been notified to them or had been notified belatedly, and that therefore they had been unable to appeal against those decisions. - Some of the applicants complained that they had not received effective legal assistance and facilities to challenge their detention; in particular, their communication with their lawyers had been restricted in numbers and monitored by the prison authorities. - Some of the applicants complained that the time taken by the Constitutional Court to conduct its examination of the individual applications had been excessive. - Some applicants alleged that there was no remedy available to them to obtain compensation. 37.     One of the applicants invoked Article 6 (civil limb) to complain of a violation of the principle of equality of arms because of the non ‑ communication of the written opinion of the prosecutor in the proceedings before the Assize Court (acting as the appeal court), before which the applicant contested some restrictions imposed by the prison authorities. 38.     Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, some of the applicants complained that the searches conducted by the authorities in their homes and offices had been unlawful. 39.     One of the applicants complained about a violation of Article   8 of the Convention, alleging that his private letters had been recorded on the National Judicial Network Server (UYAP) by the authorities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES On the basis of the complaints communicated in accordance with the list in the Appendix As for the complaints under Article 5   (a) Did the applicants’ pre-trial detention take place “in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law”, in view of the procedural guarantees provided to the judges and prosecutors by the domestic law? (b) Can the applicants be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion” that they had committed an offence (see, in particular, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom , 30   August 1990, § 32, Series A No. 182)? In particular, the parties are invited to answer this question taking into account, - on the one hand, Article 100 of the CCP, which requires “concrete evidence demonstrating the existence of strong suspicions” as to the commission of the offence, and - on the other hand, the fact that the Constitutional Court based the existence of reasonable suspicion on evidence discovered after the decisions had been taken to detain the applicants.   Were the applicants informed promptly of the reasons for their arrest and of any charge against them, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?   Did the judges who ordered the applicants’ pre-trial detention and examined the objections lodged against the measure fulfil their obligations to provide relevant and sufficient grounds in support of the deprivation of liberty in question (see, in particular, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 102, 5 July 2016)?   Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   Did the applicants have at their disposal a remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? In particular, the Government are invited to respond the following complaints made by the applicants: - that the principle of equality of arms had not been respected, as the decisions to extend their detention and their objections to those decisions had been examined without a hearing and the prosecutors’ opinions had not been communicated to them; - because of the restriction imposed on their access to the case file, they had been unable to challenge effectively their detention; - that their objections had not been examined or had been examined belatedly; - that the decisions to extend their detention had not been notified to them or had been notified belatedly, so they had been unable to lodge objections against them; - that they had had no effective legal assistance or facilities to challenge their detention; in particular, that their communication with their lawyers had been restricted and monitored; and finally, - that the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine their individual applications had been protracted.     Was the compensation remedy provided for by Article   141 of the CCP considered to be an effective remedy for complaints concerning the absence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicants having committed a criminal offence, lawfulness of the arrest, lack of an oral hearing, non ‑ notification or belated notification of the detention decision, lack of or delay in the examination of the case by the magistrates’ courts, under Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? If so, the Government are requested to produce a copy of the court decisions awarding compensation, on the basis of those provisions, to a litigant in a situation similar to that of the applicants.   Did the applicants have, as required by Article   5   §   5 of the Convention, an effective and enforceable right in court to obtain compensation for their detention, which they consider to have been contrary to Article   5   §§   1, 3 and 4? As for the complaints related to Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention   With regard to the non-communication of the prosecutor’s opinion during the proceedings before the Bakırköy Assize Court’s (Decision no.   2016/1330 D. İş) concerning the challenge by the applicant to some measures taken by the prison administration (application no. 53285/19): Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to adversarial proceedings before the Bakırköy Assize Court on account of the non ‑ communication of the prosecutor’s opinion and the lack of opportunity to submit her observations (see Göç v. Turkey [GC], no.   36590/97, §§ 43-52, ECHR 2002 ‑ V, Meral v. Turkey , no.   33446/02, §§   34-39, 27 November 2007)?   Taking into consideration the searches carried out by the authorities in the applicants’ homes and offices (applications nos. 27433/17, 20941/19, 23363/19, 36151/19, 39229/19, 39899/19, 40674/19, 46185/19, 47398/19, 53285/19, 59635/19, 1068/20): (a) was the interference with the applicants’ right to respect their private life and home in accordance with law and necessary in terms of Article   8 of the Convention? (b) was the compensation remedy provided for by Article 141 of the CCP considered an effective remedy for applicants’ complaints? If so, the Government are invited to provide copies of decisions awarding compensation in cases raising similar issues. With regard to the saving of the applicant’s letters within the National Judicial Network Server (UYAP) (application no. 47398/19): (a) Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, can that interference be considered to have been in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? (b) In particular, the Government are invited to specify the reasons for recording of the letters and the safeguards that would effectively secure their personal information against any disclosure, misuse or abuse. The Government are also invited to give information about which authorities can access the applicants’ letters via UYAP and as to whether there are time limits to keep these letters in the system.       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case title   Date of Intro Complaints for each application   73062/16 Ulusoy v. Turkey   16/11/2016 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Lack of hearing during the detention review; No effective remedy for compensation.   7494/17 Sarı v. Turkey   15/12/2016 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   20061/17 Bayram v. Turkey   23/02/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention.   27433/17 Yaz v. Turkey   27/02/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Unlawful search of home and/or office.   36899/17 Yalçın v. Turkey   16/01/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention; Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities.         40719/17 Türkyılmaz v.   Turkey   27/03/2017   Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Length of pre-trial detention.   41664/17 Karaarslan v.   Turkey   27/04/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   41879/17 Kopal v. Turkey   17/04/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Restriction of access to the investigation file. No effective remedy for compensation.   43746/17 Büyükşahin v.   Turkey   10/04/2017 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection.   45028/17 Erşen v. Turkey   26/05/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   46942/17 Uğurlu v. Turkey   15/03/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons.   49748/17 Tanrıkulu v.   Turkey   16/06/2017 Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection.   58972/17 Alanur v. Turkey   20/04/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest.   61213/17 Yılmazoğlu v.   Turkey   15/06/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   61242/17 Beydili v. Turkey   16/06/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention.   61647/17 Turgut v. Turkey   30/05/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection.   61652/17 Varol v. Turkey   25/04/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Restriction of access to the investigation file.   61970/17 Demircan v.   Turkey   26/04/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   62652/17 Barut v. Turkey   03/02/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Lack of hearing during the detention review; No effective remedy for compensation.       62720/17 Pınar v. Turkey   28/04/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention; No effective remedy to compensation.   62773/17 Gürses v. Turkey   28/04/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention.   62774/17 Arkuntaş v. Turkey   10/02/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file.   63579/17 Toprak v. Turkey   25/05/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file.   63582/17 Şahin v. Turkey   10/05/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention; Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court; No effective remedy for compensation.     63622/17 Aburşu v. Turkey   28/03/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law.   63712/17 Şişaneci v. Turkey   20/04/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Restriction of access to the investigation file.   63740/17 Köse v. Turkey   13/06/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   63784/17 Akkan v. Turkey   29/05/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Length of pre-trial detention; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review.   66359/17 Altun v. Turkey   26/01/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest.   66371/17 Soyal v. Turkey 18/05/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons.   66697/17 Sarıoğlu v. Turkey   18/05/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention.                 70544/17 Tarhan v. Turkey   27/07/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   70628/17 Özdemir v. Turkey   21/08/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review.   70644/17 Şimşek v. Turkey   14/08/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection.   70857/17 Güneş v. Turkey   08/08/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   73516/17 Çelebi v. Turkey   05/09/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file.   79074/17 Durmaz v. Turkey   11/04/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons.                   82865/17 Ülkü v. Turkey   03/11/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention.   83206/17 Aydın v. Turkey   29/11/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review.   6613/18 Kayaalp v. Turkey   16/01/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Lack of hearing during the detention review.   9899/18 Okumuş v. Turkey   30/01/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   14769/18 Yalçınöz v. Turkey   25/07/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   17830/18 Aras v. Turkey   04/04/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   20047/18 Karaosmanoğlu v.   Turkey   06/03/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention.   27587/18 Memiş v. Turkey   22/05/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Length of pre-trial detention.   40298/18 Duran v. Turkey   16/08/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons.   42196/18 Uğur v. Turkey   13/08/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Length of pre-trial detention; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   46378/18 Akgül v. Turkey   21/09/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court; No effective remedy for compensation.               52619/18 Gedikli v. Turkey   26/10/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention.   54227/18 Kaya v. Turkey   12/10/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion; Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities; Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   56472/18 Köse v. Turkey   26/11/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons.   5147/19 Beleç v. Turkey   07/01/2019   Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention.   11804/19 Şanal v. Turkey   22/02/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court; No effective remedy for compensation.         13253/19 Çakın v. Turkey   26/02/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities.   19690/19 Çitli v. Turkey   29/03/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   20941/19 Gülbaş v. Turkey   05/04/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Unlawful search of home and/or office.   23663/19 Navruz v. Turkey   22/04/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court; Unlawful search at home and/or office.   24746/19 Ertürk v. Turkey   29/04/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.             24982/19 Pekgüzel v. Turkey   25/04/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention; Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection; Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court.   27944/19 Karabacak v.   Turkey   03/05/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities.   28219/19 Evğün v. Turkey   08/05/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law; Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons; Lack of information on the reasons for arrest; Restriction of access to the investigation file; Lack of hearing during the detention review; Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities.   28260/19 Aydın v. Turkey   03/05/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in dome