CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 novembre 2023

.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 } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sE38C928A { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse; } .s41375D7A { height:27.85pt } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s1A086575 { height:34.85pt } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s1A4A6575 { height:33.15pt } .sBD94500 { height:36.9pt } .sFFAC2F38 { height:30pt } .sD9DA4DFD { height:45pt } .s5EB4F24 { height:75pt } .sD234500 { height:36.7pt } .s7F2E4500 { height:39.1pt } .sA3C756B { height:54.05pt } .s1A696575 { height:34.95pt } .s69304500 { height:33.1pt } .s392E6575 { height:37.95pt } .sC53D4500 { height:34.3pt } .s318E6D70 { height:47.35pt } .sCB8B756B { height:51.05pt } .s6858E8B1 { height:49.1pt } .s39A70776 { height:58.7pt } .s769D4627 { height:60.6pt } .s38975D7A { height:29.65pt } .s2BBD305F { height:60pt } .sF4C66D70 { height:45.55pt } .s19426575 { height:33.95pt } .s4355D7A { height:20.75pt } .sAF2DE8B1 { height:44.5pt } .sA6BA4500 { height:35.1pt } .s3C05E78A { height:19.3pt } .sD024500 { height:36.6pt } .sA7F00776 { height:56.2pt } .s1A0C6575 { height:33.35pt } .sCD29263B { height:29.7pt } .s7E264500 { height:39.9pt } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 11 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12589/18 İlhan KARASU against Türkiye and 61 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 24 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants, on suspicion of being involved in the attempted coup d’état that took place on 15 July 2016 and membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY (“Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). At the material time, most of the applicants were serving in the army as senior army officers, field officers or private soldiers. Some of the applicants were serving or former police officers. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants raise the following complaints (see the appended table for detailed information as to the specific complaints raised by each applicant): - There were no relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their initial and/or continued pre-trial detention; - The length of their pre-trial detention was excessive; - The reviews of detention took place without a hearing and they were not notified of the opinion of the public prosecutor on those reviews; - Their access to the investigation files was restricted; - The objections to their detention or their requests for release were not examined or examined belatedly; - The decisions extending their pre-trial detention were not notified to them, or were notified with a delay, which prevented them from appealing against those decisions; - They did not benefit from effective legal assistance and facilities to challenge their detention, having particular regard to the fact that their communication with their lawyers was restricted and monitored by the prison authorities; - The time taken by the Constitutional Court to conduct its examination of their individual applications was excessive. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES On the basis of the complaints communicated in accordance with the list in the Appendix Complaints under Article 5 of the Convention 1.     (a)     Did the applicants exhaust the remedies available in domestic law in relation to their complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? To the extent that the applicants’ complaints did not relate solely to the length of their pre-trial detention but also concerned the alleged failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their initial and continued pre-trial detention, can a compensation claim under Article 141 §   1   (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure be regarded as an effective remedy in respect of those complaints (see Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, § 213, 22 December 2020)?   (b)     Was the applicants’ pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular:   (i)     Did the judges, who ordered the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention and the prolongation of their detention, and who examined the objections lodged against those decisions, fulfil their obligation to provide relevant and sufficient grounds for the deprivation of liberty in question (see, in particular, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §   102, 5   July 2016)?   (ii)     Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   2.     (a)     Did the compensation remedy provided under Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure constitute an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in respect of the complaints concerning (i)   the lack of an oral hearing during the review of detention; (ii) the non-notification or belated notification of the detention decision; (iii) the lack of or delay in the examination of the objection against detention by the magistrates’ courts (compare, for example, Hebat Aslan and Firas Aslan v.   Turkey , no. 15048/09, §§ 92-93, 28 October 2014).   (b)     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:   (i)     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 (see, in particular, Baş v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, §§   212-214, 3 March 2020, and Kocamış and Kurt v. Turkey , no. 227/13, §§   34-35, 25 January 2022);   (ii)     they had been unable to challenge their detention in an effective manner because of the restriction imposed on their access to the investigation file (see, inter alia , Ceviz v. Turkey , no. 8140/08, § 41, 17 July 2012);   (iii)     their objections to their detention had not been examined or had been examined belatedly (see, for example, Shannon v. Latvia , no. 32214/03, §§     67-74, 24 November 2009);   (iv)     the decisions to extend their detention had not been notified to them or had been notified with a delay, which had prevented them from lodging objections against those decisions (compare, for example, Voskuil v.   the   Netherlands , no. 64752/01, § 83, 22 November 2007);   (v)     they had had no effective legal assistance or facilities to challenge their detention, having particular regard to the fact that their communication with their lawyers had been restricted and monitored (see, mutatis mutandis , Černák v. Slovakia , no. 36997/08, § 78, 17 December 2013);   (vi)     the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine their individual applications had been protracted (compare for the principles Kavala v.   Turkey , no. 28749/18, §§ 181-184, 10 December 2019).       APPENDIX   List of applications   No Application no. Case title Complaints 1. 12589/18 Karasu v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 2. 39026/18 Acar v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 3. 45069/18 Bakar v. Türkiye Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 4. 13107/19 Duğan v. Türkiye Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 5. 23833/20 Göktürk v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 6. 36524/20 Köymen v. Türkiye Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court   7. 37256/20 Haksal v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 8. 40085/20 Kukut v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 9. 40650/20 Özşahin v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention   10. 40978/20 Yapıcı v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 11. 46463/20 Aydemir v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 12. 48317/20 Çetin v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 13. 48479/20 Göçmen v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 14. 50039/20 Turğan v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 15. 50144/20 Demir v. Türkiye Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 16. 50670/20 Ortaç v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion   17. 53955/20 Koçyiğit v. Türkiye Lack of hearing during the detention review   18. 55168/20 Yıldız v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court   19. 2/21 Demirtürk v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 20. 202/21 Kabaklı v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 21. 959/21 Karlıdağ v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention   22. 2372/21 Bülbül v. Türkiye Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 23. 3103/21 Başpınar v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 24. 3282/21 Erkalkan v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection   25. 3585/21 Yeniay v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 26. 4942/21 Taşkın v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection   27. 5391/21 Okul v. Türkiye Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection   28. 6573/21 Ergin v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review   29. 11073/21 Kürklü v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection 30. 11258/21 Çiçek v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review   31. 11751/21 Palalı v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion   32. 12038/21 Toygar v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 33. 13528/21 Nozoğlu v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention   34. 13689/21 Kubatoğlu v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 35. 14597/21 Vardar v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention   36. 15031/21 Açıkgöz v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 37. 15949/21 Hamzaçebi v. Türkiye Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities   38. 20137/21 Kahveci v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 39. 20841/21 Köse v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 40. 24071/21 Anaz v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention   41. 26093/21 Aydoğdu v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention   42. 26142/21 Akbal v. Türkiye Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection     43. 27484/21 Güney v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention   44. 27775/21 Özcan v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention   45. 27949/21 Demirkale v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 46. 28972/21 Yıldırım v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review   47. 31048/21 Çayırlı v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention   48. 31274/21 Akbulut v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities   49. 37159/21 Gündüz v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 50. 42324/21 Muzafferiyet v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 51. 42866/21 Yozgat v. Türkiye Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 52. 42878/21 Gökçe v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review   53. 43401/21 Avşar v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention   54. 44034/21 Ordu v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention   55. 44179/21 Ercan v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention   56. 47799/21 Kılıç v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 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 Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court   57. 293/22 Gür v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection   58. 7843/22 Yılmaz v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention   59. 8014/22 Tulgar v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection   60. 13614/2 Cömert v. Türkiye Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection   61. 19675/22 Muratoğlu v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention   62. 20852/22 Yıldız v. Türkiye Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file