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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7BE5FA7D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sAEB55588 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7B958E5 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } Communicated on 16 October 2020 Published on 2 November 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14676/17 İbrahim Tufan ATAMAN against Turkey and 53 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Background of the cases 1.     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. 2.     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. 3.     The day after the attempted military coup, the national authorities blamed the network linked to Fetullah 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 Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). Several criminal investigations were subsequently initiated by the appropriate prosecuting authorities in respect of suspected members of that organisation. 4.     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. 5.     On 21 July 2016 the Turkish authorities gave notice to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of derogation from the Convention under Article   15. 6.     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 Council of Judges and Prosecutors (“HSK”) was authorised to dismiss any of its members who were considered to belong to or be affiliated with 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). 7.     The Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office notified the names of the members of the Court of Cassation and Supreme Administrative Court to these supreme courts against whom it had initiated investigations. Having convened upon the notification letter of the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, on 17 July 2016 the 1st Presidency Board of the Court of Cassation and Presidency Board of the Supreme Administrative Court issued decisions revoking the existing authorities of the 140 members of the Court of Cassation and 48 members of the Supreme Administrative Court whose names had been indicated. 8.     By Law no. 6723, which entered into force on 23 July 2016, the Court of Cassation Act and the Supreme Administrative Court Act were amended and the membership status of all members of these courts was terminated. Afterwards, the HSK appointed some of them as rapporteur judges at these supreme courts where they used to work as members. 9.     By decisions of 24 August 2016, 31 August 2016, 4   October 2016, 15   November 2016, 13 February 2017, 17 March 2017, 3   April 2017 and 5   May 2017 pursuant to Article 3 of Legislative Decree no. 667, the HSK, meeting in plenary session, dismissed respectively 2,847, 543, 66, 203, 227, 202, 45 and 107   judges and prosecutors, all of whom were considered to be members of, affiliated with or linked to FETÖ/PDY. Some of the applicants were thus dismissed from their functions. 10.     By decisions of unspecified dates pursuant to Article 3 of Legislative Decree no.   667, the board of presidents of the Military Court of Cassation and the board of presidents of the Supreme Military Administrative Court   dismissed   some of their judges, all of whom were considered to be members of, affiliated with or linked to FETÖ/PDY. Some of the applicants were thus dismissed from their functions. 11.     On 18 July 2018, the state of emergency was lifted. Personal situation of the applicants (a)    The applicants’ arrests and pre-trial detention 12.     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 FETÖ/PDY and of those not directly involved but having links with that organisation, including some members of the judiciary. 13.     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 (the “CCP”). The judges concluded that the applicants’ pre-trial detention appeared, at that stage, to be a proportionate measure. 14.     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 applicants’ pre-trial detention and the dismissal of their objections 15.     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. 16.     In most cases, the magistrates’ courts 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 yet been collected. 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. 17.     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. 18.     Objections lodged by the applicants were rejected by the magistrates’ courts, which relied on grounds similar to those indicated in their previous decisions. 19.     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 Legislative Decree no. 667. 20.     On various dates, the Court of Cassation as a first instance court convicted some of the applicants of membership of a terrorist organisation. The criminal proceedings against them are still ongoing. 21.     During the trial, the trial court, 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 22.     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. 23.     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 downloading for use could be considered by the investigating 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 indictments 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 suspicion” that they had committed an offence. 24.     As regards the complaints that the magistrates’ courts were not independent and impartial, the Constitutional Court concluded that the complaints were manifestly ill-founded. It also declared inadmissible the applicants’ complaints that the applicants were deprived of certain procedural guarantees, as well as their complaints that the magistrates’ courts had lacked jurisdiction to decide on detention, as manifestly ill-founded. 25.     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, lasting approximately nine months, had not violated the right to liberty and security. It therefore considered that those complaints were manifestly ill-founded. 26.     With regard to the restriction on access to the investigation file, the Constitutional Court considered, after examining the transcripts of the hearing, that 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 grounds for detention, that they had 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 complaints to be manifestly ill-founded. 27.     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. 28.     The Constitutional Court dismissed the complaints lodged by some of the applicants concerning the lack of an oral hearing, non-notification or belated notification of the detention decision and lack of or delay in the examination of the case by the magistrate’s courts on the grounds that they had failed to use the compensation remedy provided for by Article   141 of the CCP. 29.     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 30.     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 31.     The applicants complain of a violation of Article   5 of the Convention for the following reasons: -     Some of the applicants claim that they were remanded in detention in breach of the procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law for high magistrates and members of the HSK. -     Some of the applicants complain that they were 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 complain that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them. -     Some of the applicants claim that the length of their pre-trial detention was excessive. -     Some of the applicants complain that the domestic courts did not hold a hearing when reviewing their pre-trial detention, that they were not notified of the opinion of the public prosecutor on those reviews and that their access to the investigation file was restricted. -     Some of the applicants complain that their release requests and objections were not examined or were examined belatedly. -     Some of the applicants complain that the decisions to extend their detention were not notified to them or were notified belatedly, and that therefore they were unable to appeal against those decisions. -     Some of the applicants complain that they did not receive effective legal assistance and facilities to challenge their detention; in particular, their communication with their lawyers was monitored by the prison authorities. -     Some of the applicants complain that the time taken by the Constitutional Court to conduct its examination of the case was excessive. The specific complaints in respect of each applicant can be found in the appended table. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES On the basis of the complaints communicated in accordance with the list in the Appendix   1.     (a)     Did the applicants’ pre-trial detention take place “in accordance with the law”, in particular taking into consideration the procedural guarantees provided to the high magistrates and members of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors by domestic law?   (b)     Can the applicants be considered to have been detained on the basis of “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 Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires “concrete evidence demonstrating the existence of strong suspicions” as to the commission of the offence; -     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.   2.     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?   3.     Can it be considered that the judges who ordered the applicants’ pre-trial detention and examined the objections lodged against that measure fulfilled their obligation to provide relevant and sufficient grounds in support of the deprivation of liberty in question (see, in particular, Buzadji v.   Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 102, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?   4.     Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention?   5.     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 to 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 their detention effectively;   -     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 monitored;   -     and lastly, that the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine their individual applications had been protracted.   6.     Was the compensation remedy provided for by Article   141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an effective remedy for complaints concerning the lack of an oral hearing, failure to notify or belated notification of the detention decision and, lastly, lack of or delay in the examination by the magistrates’ court 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.     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case title   Date of Intro Complaints for each application     1 14676/17 Ataman v. Turkey   11/01/2017 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 communicating decisions relating to detention 2 15648/17 Demir v. Turkey   19/01/2017 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/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 3 16138/17 Özcan v. Turkey   05/12/2016 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention 4 60397/17 Arseven v. Turkey   14/04/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 5 62630/17 Genç v. Turkey   30/06/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of information on the reasons for arrest Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 6 62632/17 Çırak v. Turkey   30/06/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of information on the reasons for arrest Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 7 62636/17 Ekinci v. Turkey   30/06/2017 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 8 62640/17 İşlek v. Turkey   30/06/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of information on the reasons for arrest 9 62914/17 Yılbaşı v. Turkey   04/05/2017 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 Restriction of access to the investigation file 10 63829/17 Çelik v. Turkey   25/05/2017 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file       11 63869/17 Öztoprak v. Turkey   24/05/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 12 71506/17 B.O. v. Turkey   17/07/2017 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 13 72263/17 Acu v. Turkey   24/08/2017 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 14 74011/17 Zeybel v. Turkey   25/08/2017 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file 15 76346/17 Saylak v. Turkey   06/10/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file 16 81572/17 Seyhan v. Turkey   06/11/2017 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of information on the reasons for arrest 17 81822/17 Karayol v. Turkey   06/11/2017 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Lack of information on the reasons for arrest     18 84615/17 Kurt v. Turkey   13/11/2017 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of information on the reasons for arrest 19 1210/18 Sarıçam v. Turkey   07/12/2017 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 20 1562/18 Şahin v. Turkey   06/11/2017 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 21 4018/18 Kulaç v. Turkey   06/12/2017 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 22 6156/18 Bayrak v. Turkey   22/01/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file 23 7206/18 Emiroğlu v. Turkey   29/01/2018 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 24 17506/18 Ural v. Turkey   12/02/2018 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 Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 25 43089/18 Sönmez v. Turkey   07/08/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of information on the reasons for arrest Lack of hearing during the detention review 26 2779/19 Güleç v. Turkey   14/12/2018 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection 27 11822/19 Kaya v. Turkey   13/02/2019 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 28 11902/19 Kılıç v. Turkey   26/02/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 29 14698/19 Noyan v. Turkey   08/03/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 30 19829/19 Berberoğlu v. Turkey   22/03/2019 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 31 20004/19 Özer v. Turkey   09/02/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Length of pre-trial detention Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 32 20241/19 Yüce v. Turkey   28/03/2019 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       33 24036/19 Ayyıldız v. Turkey   29/04/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention 34 25373/19 Sönmez v. Turkey   03/05/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 35 25426/19 Sözen v. Turkey   24/04/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 36 25878/19 Demirci v. Turkey   15/04/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 37 27279/19 Güney v. Turkey   07/05/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law   38 28408/19 Doğan v. Turkey   09/05/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 39 28562/19 Demir v. Turkey   09/05/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons         40 29063/19 Arı v. Turkey   31/05/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 41 29353/19 Yıldız v. Turkey   11/05/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 42 30521/19 Akkuş v. Turkey   18/05/2019 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 43 33507/19 Çelik v. Turkey   14/06/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of information on the reasons for arrest Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 44 36987/19 Ergün v. Turkey   31/05/2019 Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of information on the reasons for arrest Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 45 37094/19 Taşkın v. Turkey   27/06/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 46 37126/19 Aydın v. Turkey   05/07/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Length of pre-trial detention Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 47 39236/19 Tosun v. Turkey   24/06/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Length of pre-trial detention     48 39250/19 Özaykut v. Turkey   19/06/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of information on the reasons for arrest Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 49 39660/19 Şahin v. Turkey   11/07/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 50 40264/19 Yılmaz v. Turkey   25/07/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 51 43562/19 Toker v. Turkey   03/08/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 52 44461/19 Boyraz v. Turkey   15/08/2019 Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 53 44467/19 Oğuz v. Turkey   04/07/2019 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 54 3517/20 Kılınç v. Turkey   10/01/2020 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons