CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 55353/20 Bekir KARATAŞ against Türkiye lodged on 27 November 2020 communicated on 17 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the proceedings for judicial review of the applicant’s detention, ordered upon the pronouncement of the sentence by the 16 th   Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, acting as a court of first instance. Relying on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his requests for release during the appeal process were not examined by the criminal chambers of the Court of Cassation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Were the guarantees of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention applicable to the procedure for the appeal review of the applicant’s post-conviction detention (see Stollenwerk v. Germany , no. 8844/12, §§   35-37, 7   September 2017, with further references; and Yılmaz Aydemir v. Türkiye , no. 61808/19, §§ 36-41, 23 May 2023)?   If so, did the applicant have an effective remedy at his disposal to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was there a violation of Article 5 § 4 due to the applicant’s inability to obtain judicial review of the lawfulness of his post-conviction detention during the appeal process (see, mutatis mutandis , Zakshevskiy v. Ukraine , no. 7193/04, §§ 89-96, 17   March 2016)?