CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 2025

.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 24 February 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 64450/17 Sait TAYCI against Türkiye lodged on 22 June 2017 communicated on 7 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE At the material time, the applicant was one of the co-chairs of the Manisa branch of the Peoples’ Democratic Party ( Halkların Demokratik Partisi , “the   HDP”). The application concerns the applicant’s pre-trial detention in the context of a criminal investigation opened against him for contravening the Meetings and Demonstrations Act (Law no. 2911), disseminating propaganda in support of an armed terrorist organisation and being a member of an armed terrorist organisation. The applicant alleges that his pre-trial detention violated Article 5 §§ 1, 3, and   4, Article 6 and Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can the applicant be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion” that he 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 applicant’s pre-trial detention sufficient to satisfy an objective observer that he may have committed the offences attributed to him (see Mergen and Others v.   Turkey , nos. 44062/09 and 4 others, §§ 46-55, 31 May 2016, and Ayşe Yüksel and Others v. Turkey , nos.   55835/09 and 2   others, §§   51-60, 31   May 2016)?   2.     Did the magistrates who ordered the applicant’s 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 (see, in particular, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-102, 5 July 2016)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal a remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)   Had the applicant been unable to challenge effectively his detention because of the restriction imposed on his access to the investigation file (see Ceviz v. Turkey , no. 8140/08, § 41, 17 July 2012; Nedim Şener v.   Turkey , no.   38270/11, § 82, 8 July 2014; and Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Others v.   Türkiye , nos. 14332/17 and 12   others, §§ 573-79, 8   November 2022)?   (b)   Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy before the Constitutional Court, by which the lawfulness of his detention could be determined speedily, and his release ordered if necessary (see   Khokhlov v.   Cyprus , no. 53114/20, §§ 72 ‑ 83, 13 June 2023, and the case-law cited therein)?   The Government are invited to submit a copy of the investigation file and all documents relating to the file of the criminal case brought against him.