SECOND SECTION
Application no. 50332/12
Hazni BAYAM
against Turkey
lodged on 30 May 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Hazni Bayam, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1992 and is currently detained in Gaziantep. He is represented before the Court by Ms C. Altuntaş, a lawyer practising in Mersin.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date an investigation was initiated concerning several offences committed on behalf of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation.
On 26 December 2011 the Mersin Magistrates’ Court (in criminal matters) rendered a decision restricting access to the investigation file.
On 29 December 2011, in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer, police officers from the Anti-Terror Branch of the Mersin Security Directorate took his statement in detail with respect to his involvement in certain activities committed on behalf of the PKK. He was mainly questioned about several records of telephone conversations and certain offences of burning of vehicles and throwing of Molotov cocktails. He was further asked questions about the incriminating statements of one of his co-accused. The questions took up 53 pages. He preferred to remain silent and did not answer any question.
On 30 December 2011, after having taken the applicant’s statement, the Mersin Magistrates’ Court (in criminal matters) ordered his pre-trial detention.
On 16 March 2012 the applicant’s representative lodged an objection against the decision on the applicant’s detention, requesting that the applicant be released. She also submitted that they had not had access to the investigation file due to the decision restricting access, as a result of which they had been deprived of the opportunity to respond to the accusations. She further requested the court to hold a hearing.
On 26 March 2012 the Mersin Assize Court dismissed the objection, without having held a hearing.
On 10 September 2012 the Adana public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, accusing him mainly of membership of an armed illegal organisation and making propaganda in favour of it, illegal possession of explosives, causing damage to property and having participated in an illegal armed demonstration.
On 1 October 2012 the Adana Assize Court accepted the indictment and decided to open the main proceedings against the applicant. On the same date the confidentiality order was also lifted.
According to the information in the case file, the proceedings against the applicant are pending before the Adana Assize Court.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law can be found in the case of Uludağ v. Turkey (application no. 21292/07).
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention the applicant maintains that the decision restricting access to the investigation file prevented him from effectively objecting to the decision to remand him in detention. He further complains that he was denied adversarial proceedings in the objection to his continued detention as no oral hearing was held before the assize court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
In particular, did the decision restricting access to the investigation file prevent him from effectively objecting to the decision to remand him in detention (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II)?
Additionally, was the applicant denied adversarial proceedings in the objection to his continued detention as no oral hearing was held before the assize court (see Erişen and Others v. Turkey, no. 7067/06, 3 April 2012)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy