CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 avril 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 12 May 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 11738/21 Hasan SAFA against Türkiye lodged on 11 February 2021 communicated on 22 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is the former Iğdır provincial head of the People’s Democratic Party (“ Halkların Demokratik Partisi ”), and former mayor of the Halfeti district. On 27 March 2020, following his dismissal as mayor of Halfeti by the Ministry, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention by the Iğdır Magistrate’s Court on charges of being a member of an armed terrorist organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). On 2   April 2020 the Doğubayazıt Magistrate’s Court rejected his objection to that decision. On 24 November 2020 and 29 December 2020, the Constitutional Court examined the applicant’s individual applications concerning the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention and the lack of relevant and sufficient grounds and declared them inadmissible. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 and Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the domestic courts ordered his initial and prolonged pre-trial detention on account of his legal and political activities, without relevant and sufficient grounds and a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence.   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 might have committed the offences attributed to him (see, mutatis mutandis , 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 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)?