CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 November 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45562/21 Doğan ERBAŞ and Ali İPEKLİ against Türkiye lodged on 1 September 2021 communicated on 21 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE At the material time, the applicants were members of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (“HDP”), a left-wing pro-Kurdish political party, in the province of Istanbul. The application concerns the applicants’ pre-trial detention in the context of a criminal investigation opened against them for membership of a terrorist organisation, namely the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organisation). The applicants allege that their pre-trial detention violated Article   5   §§   1 and 3 of the Convention. The second applicant further alleges a violation of Article   5 § 4 of the Convention on the grounds that the Constitutional Court did not comply with the requirement of “speediness” in the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention. Both applicants further complain that their detention, as well as the criminal proceedings against them, breached Article 10 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicants’ pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can the applicants be considered to have been detained on the basis of a “reasonable suspicion” that they had committed an offence, within the meaning of Article   5 §   1 (c) of the Convention (see, in particular, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom , 30 August 1990, §   32, Series   A no. 182)? Was the evidence that was available in the file at the time of the applicants’ pre-trial detention sufficient to satisfy an objective observer that they may have committed the offences attributed to them (see, mutatis mutandis , Mergen and Others v. Turkey , nos. 44062/09 and 4   others, §§ 46-55, 31 May 2016, and Yüksel and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   55835/09 and 2 others, §§ 51-60, 31 May 2016)?   2.     Did the magistrates who ordered the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention fulfil their obligation under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention to provide relevant and sufficient grounds in support of the deprivation of liberty in question? In addition, was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, in particular, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-102, 5   July 2016)?   3.     Did the procedure before the Constitutional Court by which the second applicant sought to challenge the legality of his pre-trial detention comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the time taken by the Constitutional Court to review the legality of the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the “speediness” requirement of this article ( see Kavala v. Turkey , no. 28749/18, §§   185-196, 10 December 2019)?   4.     Was there an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention, due to their placement in pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against them? If so, was this interference prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society (see, mutatis mutandis , Nedim Şener v. Turkey , no. 38270/11, §§   92-119, 8   July 2014)?