Published on 16 June 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 46683/15
Ertan ERÇIKTI and Others
against Türkiye
lodged on 11 September 2015
communicated on 26 May 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of speediness of the Constitutional Court in the review proceedings concerning the applicants’ pre-trial detention ordered in 2014. It further pertains to the alleged (i) lack of relevant and sufficient grounds in the decisions ordering and prolonging the pre-trial detention of some of the applicants, and (ii) the excessive length of these applicants’ pre-trial detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
All the applicants are former police officers who were placed in pre-trial detention on terrorism-related charges in 2014 and 2015.
They lodged numerous individual applications with the Constitutional Court upon non-execution of the decisions to release them ordered by the Istanbul 32nd Criminal Court of First Instance (see, for further information on the incident, Başer and Özçelik v. Türkiye, nos. 30694/15 and 30803/15, §§ 8-30, 13 September 2022). In 2018, 2019 and 2020 the Constitutional Court declared their individual applications inadmissible.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants have at their disposal a remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their pre-trial detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy before the Constitutional Court, by which the lawfulness of their detention could be determined speedily, and their release ordered if necessary (see Khokhlov v. Cyprus, no. 53114/20, §§ 72‑83, 13 June 2023, and the case-law cited therein)?
2. Except for the second, third, seventh, fourteenth, fifteenth and eighteenth applicants, did the magistrates who ordered the applicants’ 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? In addition, was the length of these applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, in particular, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84‑102, 5 July 2016)?
APPENDIX
Application no. 46683/15
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
Ertan ERÇIKTI
1971
Turkish
Istanbul
2.
Osman Özgür AÇIKGÖZ
1975
Turkish
Istanbul
3.
Ali Fuat ALTUNTAŞ
1992
Turkish
Istanbul
4.
Necati ARSLAN
1985
Turkish
Istanbul
5.
Gafur ATAÇ
1979
Turkish
Tekirdağ
6.
Yurt ATAYÜN
1969
Turkish
Istanbul
7.
Serdar BAYRAKTUTAN
1973
Turkish
Istanbul
8.
Oğuzhan CEYLAN
1978
Turkish
Istanbul
9.
Ensar DOĞAN
1989
Turkish
Istanbul
10.
Serhat Taner DOĞAN
1985
Turkish
Istanbul
11.
Kürşat DURMUŞ
1977
Turkish
Istanbul
12.
Mehmet IŞIK
1983
Turkish
Istanbul
13.
Muhammed KAYA
1982
Turkish
Istanbul
14.
Aytekin KOÇAK
1988
Turkish
Istanbul
15.
Erhan KÖRTEK
1986
Turkish
Istanbul
16.
Ömer KÖSE
1971
Turkish
Istanbul
17.
Erkan ÜNAL
1983
Turkish
Antalya
18.
Yunusemre UZUNOĞLU
1986
Turkish
İzmir
19.
Selman YUYUCU
1986
Turkish
Kocaeli