Published on 6 April 2021
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 117/18
Hüseyin KESKİN against Turkey
and 83 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 19 March 2021
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.Attempted coup d’état of 15 July 2016
3. The relevant background information regarding the attempted coup d’état of 15 July 2016, and the developments that followed that attempt, may be found in the case of Baş v. Turkey (no. 66448/17, §§ 6-14, 3 March 2020).Personal situation of the applicants
(a) The applicants’ arrest and pre-trial detention
4. On 16 July 2016, the Bureau for Crimes against the Constitutional Order at the Ankara public prosecutor’s office launched a criminal investigation into the attempted coup d’état. Acting on the instructions of the Ankara public prosecutor’s office, regional and provincial prosecutors’ offices also initiated criminal investigations in respect of individuals suspected of being involved in the attempt and others who were not directly involved but were alleged to have links to the FETÖ/PDY (Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation / Parallel State Structure), which was considered to be behind the attempted coup d’état.
5. The applicants were taken into police custody on various dates in the course of the aforementioned investigations. At the end of their detention in police custody, they were brought before the magistrates’ courts, which ordered their detention on remand. In ordering the applicants’ detention, the magistrates’ courts relied mainly on their alleged use of the ByLock encrypted messaging system, as well as on witness statements or other evidence in the case of a number of applicants. The magistrates’ courts justified the detention orders having regard, inter alia, to the nature of the offence at issue, the evidence adduced and the potential penalty, and also took into account the risk that the applicants might abscond, tamper with evidence and reoffend if not placed in pre-trial detention. They also noted that the investigations into the attempted coup were being conducted nationwide, that statements had not been collected from all suspects, and that the offence with which they were charged was among the so-called “catalogue” offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the “CCP”). The magistrates’ courts concluded, on the basis of the foregoing, that the applicants’ pre-trial detention appeared to be a proportionate measure at that stage of the proceedings.
6. Objections lodged by the applicants against the detention orders were dismissed by other magistrates’ courts, in terms similar to the initial decisions.
(b) Decisions on the continuation of the applicants’ pre-trial detention and the dismissal of their objections
7. The applicants’ continued pre-trial detention was reviewed automatically pursuant to Article 108 of the CCP, which provides for a review every thirty days. The judges ruled on the applicants’ requests for release at the same time as the automatic periodic review of their detentions, pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1 (ç), of Legislative Decree no. 668.
8. In most cases, the magistrates’ courts ordered the prolongation of the applicants’ detention in the course of its automatic periodic review conducted in respect of several suspects together. In their decisions, they essentially repeated the reasons given to justify the initial pre-trial detention. They noted that a large proportion of those suspected of being members of FETÖ/PDY had fled and were still wanted. Taking into account the resources available to that organisation and its characteristics, the judges considered that there was a risk that the applicants might abscond, tamper with evidence and reoffend if released. The judges also stressed the seriousness of the terrorism-related offences with which the applicants were charged and the fact that not all the evidence had yet been collected. They concluded that the decisions to continue the detention were justified in the light of the information, documents and evidence in the investigation files. They added that given that there was still a clear and imminent danger associated with the attempted coup d’état, continued detention appeared to be a proportionate measure.
9. Objections lodged by the applicants against the prolongation of their detention were rejected by the magistrates’ courts, which largely relied on the grounds indicated in their previous decisions.
10. At the investigation stage, both the requests made by the public prosecutors for the extension of the detentions, and the applicants’ objections to their continued detention, were examined on the basis of the case files, pursuant to Article 6, paragraph 1, subparagraph ı, of Legislative Decree no. 667.
11. During the course of the subsequent trial stage, the first-instance courts, ruling either at the end of the hearings or at reviews carried out between the hearings, ordered the applicants’ continued detention and dismissed the requests for release on grounds similar to those noted above.
12. On various dates, the first-instance courts convicted some of the applicants of membership of a terrorist organisation. According to the latest information in the case files, the criminal proceedings against the remaining applicants are still pending before the first-instance courts.
(c) Individual applications to the Constitutional Court
13. The applicants each lodged one or more individual applications with the Constitutional Court. On different dates, the Constitutional Court declared those applications inadmissible. The various complaints submitted by the applicants were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on the following grounds:
14. With regard to the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention, the Constitutional Court noted that, according to the indictments and/or the investigation files, most of the applicants were users of ByLock. It considered that, given the characteristics of that messaging application, its use, or its downloading for use, could be reasonably considered by the investigating authorities as evidence of a link with FETÖ/PDY. It referred in this connection to its judgment in the case of Aydın Yavuz, delivered on 20 June 2017, where the use of that encrypted messaging application had been considered, depending on the circumstances of the case, as “strong evidence” of the commission of the offence of membership of FETÖ/PDY. Consequently, it could not be concluded that the investigating authorities or the courts that had decided on the applicants’ detention had acted arbitrarily. In addition, taking into account the reasons provided to justify detention, the Constitutional Court found that those measures were justified and proportionate. It therefore considered the applicants’ grievances in this regard to be manifestly ill-founded. As concerns some of the applicants, the Constitutional Court moreover noted that the indictments and/or investigation files contained witness statements or other pertinent evidence suggesting their membership of FETÖ/PDY, which demonstrated that they had been detained on the basis of “reasonable grounds to suspect” that they had committed an offence.
15. As regards the complaint concerning the absence of a hearing during the review of detention, the Constitutional Court considered that there was no reason to depart from its landmark decision in the case of Aydın Yavuz, where it had found that the lack of a hearing during the review of detention, which had lasted approximately nine months, had not violated the right to liberty and security, having particular regard to the exigencies of the state of emergency. It therefore considered those complaints to be manifestly ill‑founded.
16. As for the restriction on access to the investigation files, the Constitutional Court considered, after examining the transcripts of the hearings, the decisions relating to the applicants’ detention, the objections lodged against those decisions, and the documents and information contained in the investigation files, that the applicants had been informed of the elements that constituted the main grounds for their detention, that they had had sufficient knowledge of their content and that they had been given the opportunity to challenge the decisions ordering their detention. Therefore, it similarly found those complaints to be manifestly ill-founded.
17. The Constitutional Court rejected the complaints lodged by some of the applicants concerning the lack of an oral hearing during the review of detention, the non-notification or belated notification of the detention decision, and the lack of or delay in the examination of the case by the magistrates’ courts on the grounds that they had failed to use the compensation remedy provided for by Article 141 of the CCP.
18. The Constitutional Court dismissed any remaining complaints raised by the applicants on the grounds that they had not used the appropriate remedies.Relevant domestic law and practice
19. The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the cases of Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey (no. 13237/17, §§ 56-80, 20 March 2018) and Baş (cited above, §§ 52-104).
COMPLAINTS
20. The applicants complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on the basis of the following allegations (see the appended table for detailed information as to the specific complaints raised by each applicant):
- They had been detained in the absence of any suspicion that they had committed an offence;
- There had been no relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their initial and/or continued pre-trial detention;
- The length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive;
- The reviews of detention had taken place without a hearing and they had not been notified of the opinion of the public prosecutor on those reviews;
- Their access to the investigation files had been restricted;
- The objections to their detention or their requests for release had not been examined or examined belatedly;
- The decisions extending their pre-trial detention had not been notified to them, or had been notified with a delay, which had prevented them from appealing against those decisions;
- They had not benefited from effective legal assistance and facilities to challenge their detention, having particular regard to the fact that their communication with their lawyers had been monitored by the prison authorities;
- The time taken by the Constitutional Court to conduct its examination on their individual applications had been excessive.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
On the basis of the complaints communicated in accordance with the list in the Appendix
1. Can the applicants be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion” that they had committed an offence (see, in particular, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 32, Series A No. 182), taking into account, in particular, Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires “concrete evidence demonstrating the existence of strong suspicions” as to the commission of the offence?
Moreover, has the Constitutional Court based the existence of reasonable suspicion on evidence discovered after the decisions had been taken to detain the applicants?
2. a. Did the applicants exhaust the remedies available in domestic law in relation to their complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? To the extent that the applicants’ complaints did not relate solely to the length of their pre-trial detention but also concerned the alleged failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their initial and continued pre-trial detention, can a compensation claim under Article 141 § 1(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure be regarded as an effective remedy in respect of those complaints (see Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, § 213, 22 December 2020)?
The Government are invited to provide sample decisions to demonstrate whether the remedy under Article 141 § 1(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been interpreted and applied by the national courts in manner that extends to complaints concerning the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons to justify pre-trial detention.
b. Was the applicants’ pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular:
i. Did the judges, who ordered the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention and the prolongation of their detention, and who examined the objections lodged against those decisions, fulfil their obligation to provide relevant and sufficient grounds for the deprivation of liberty in question (see, in particular, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 102, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?
ii. Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicants have at their disposal a remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, the Government are invited to respond to the following complaints made by the applicants:
i. the principle of equality of arms had not been respected, as the decisions to extend their detention and their objections to those decisions had been examined without a hearing and the prosecutors’ opinions had not been communicated to them;
ii. they had been unable to challenge their detention in an effective manner because of the restriction imposed on their access to the investigation file;
iii. their objections to their detention had not been examined or had been examined belatedly;
iv. the decisions to extend their detention had not been notified to them or had been notified with a delay, which had prevented them from lodging objections against those decisions;
v. they had had no effective legal assistance or facilities to challenge their detention, having particular regard to the fact that their communication with their lawyers had been monitored;
vi. the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine their individual applications had been protracted.
4. Did the compensation remedy provided under Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure constitute an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in respect of complaints concerning (i) the lack of an oral hearing during the review of detention; (ii) the non-notification or belated notification of the detention decision; and (iii) the lack of or delay in the examination of the objection against detention by the magistrates’ courts?
The Government are invited to provide sample domestic court decisions in support of their reply.
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case Title
ID no.
Date of Intro
Complaints for each application
1
117/18
Keskin v. Turkey
06/12/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
2
174/18
Aymaz v. Turkey
05/12/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
3
352/18
Genç v. Turkey
28/11/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
4
356/18
Kılıç v. Turkey
29/11/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
5
747/18
Demir v. Turkey
07/12/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
6
2690/18
Paşaalioğlu v. Turkey
19/12/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
7
2859/18
Şeker v. Turkey
21/12/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities
8
3279/18
Başar v. Turkey
26/12/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
9
3454/18
Yurdaer v. Turkey
08/12/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
10
4634/18
Eker v. Turkey
13/07/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
11
4640/18
Erğun v. Turkey
13/07/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
12
4722/18
Yılmaz v. Turkey
13/07/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
13
5936/18
Hanay v. Turkey
25/04/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court
Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
14
6388/18
Kocaman v. Turkey
18/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
15
6731/18
Biliyor v. Turkey
09/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
16
6769/18
Olcay v. Turkey
09/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
17
6959/18
Baş v. Turkey
24/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities
Lack of reasonable suspicion
18
7942/18
Atılgan v. Turkey
23/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
19
8899/18
Taş v. Turkey
02/06/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
20
8901/18
Girgin v. Turkey
02/06/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
21
8903/18
Yaşar v. Turkey
02/06/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
22
8906/18
Arslan v. Turkey
23/05/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
23
8912/18
Yıldız v. Turkey
06/07/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
24
8913/18
Teyran v. Turkey
23/06/2017
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
25
9581/18
Kumaş v. Turkey
13/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of reasonable suspicion
26
9583/18
Akbulut v. Turkey
13/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
27
9588/18
Yıldırım v. Turkey
13/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
28
9869/18
Yıldız v. Turkey
26/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
29
9947/18
Çamcı v. Turkey
29/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
30
9954/18
Gelir v. Turkey
29/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
31
9957/18
Arslan v. Turkey
29/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
32
9965/18
Kaya v. Turkey
29/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
33
9969/18
Güler v. Turkey
29/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
34
9975/18
Ayer v. Turkey
29/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
35
9982/18
Eren v. Turkey
29/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
36
10286/18
Güneyisi v. Turkey
06/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
37
10405/18
Arı v. Turkey
30/01/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
38
10609/18
Kara v. Turkey
12/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
39
10618/18
Gözüaçık v. Turkey
02/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
40
10648/18
Bilsel v. Turkey
13/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
41
10653/18
Tunçkol v. Turkey
13/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
42
10852/18
Sancar v. Turkey
02/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
43
11782/18
Çakır v. Turkey
14/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
44
11786/18
Ören v. Turkey
27/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
45
12210/18
Turan v. Turkey
23/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
46
12314/18
Sargın v. Turkey
26/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
47
12409/18
Yılmazlar v. Turkey
01/03/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
48
12565/18
Aydoğan v. Turkey
16/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
49
12602/18
Yıldırım v. Turkey
13/02/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
50
12628/18
Göksu v. Turkey
05/03/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of reasonable suspicion
51
12631/18
Tufan v. Turkey
08/03/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
52
13649/18
Tayman v. Turkey
09/03/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
53
13739/18
Şahin v. Turkey
19/03/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
54
14500/18
Altay v. Turkey
16/03/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
55
14565/18
Özer v. Turkey
16/03/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
56
14817/18
Acar v. Turkey
07/03/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
57
15433/18
Kaya v. Turkey
22/03/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
58
26339/18
Hayal v. Turkey
27/05/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
59
26411/18
Özyapı v. Turkey
30/05/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
60
27123/18
Koçak v. Turkey
01/06/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
61
40844/18
Metin v. Turkey
16/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities
Lack of reasonable suspicion
62
40911/18
Can v. Turkey
10/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
63
41230/18
Pekkürkcü v. Turkey
18/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
64
41526/18
Atak v. Turkey
06/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
65
41846/18
Şenliler v. Turkey
17/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
66
41856/18
Pınarakar v. Turkey
14/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
67
42184/18
Boğur v. Turkey
29/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
68
42238/18
Dolaşık v. Turkey
27/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
69
42247/18
Sevinç v. Turkey
13/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
70
42307/18
Şahin v. Turkey
15/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
71
42430/18
Bedir v. Turkey
03/09/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
72
42591/18
Demir v. Turkey
27/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of reasonable suspicion
73
42673/18
Kural v. Turkey
31/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
74
42857/18
Dilcioğlu v. Turkey
28/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
75
42858/18
Alıcı v. Turkey
28/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
76
42872/18
Gülten v. Turkey
14/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
77
42882/18
Çalışkan v. Turkey
29/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
78
42887/18
Köroğlu v. Turkey
06/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
79
42901/18
Kara v. Turkey
06/09/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
80
43165/18
Ebcim v. Turkey
03/09/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
81
43671/18
Ceran v. Turkey
03/09/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
82
43712/18
Durdu v. Turkey
29/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
83
43864/18
Baş v. Turkey
29/08/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of reasonable suspicion
84
43979/18
Küçük v. Turkey
03/09/2018
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy