Published on 2 October 2023
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 67173/16
Ramis ÇIĞIN
against Türkiye
lodged on 16 November 2016
communicated on 13 September 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The case concerns the applicant’s complaints that he was detained on remand in the absence of any suspicion that he had committed an offence and without relevant and sufficient grounds.
On 1st June 2016 the Ankara 6th Magistrate’s Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on suspicion of financing terrorism and membership of a terrorist organisation, namely FETÖ/PDY (an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY - “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). The magistrate based his decision on the fact that on 26 March 2014, the applicant had transferred 10,000 USD from his Bank Asya account to an institution that carries out activities in the USA, namely Respect Institute Inc (an institution allegedly having ties with FETÖ/PDY) following the orders of the leader of FETÖ/PDY. The objection lodged by the applicant against the detention order was dismissed.
On 25 July 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s individual application in which he had complained, in particular, about a violation of his rights under Article 5 of the Convention on account of the alleged unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention.
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, 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 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, § 102, 5 July 2016)?