Published on 13 October 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 9604/23
Günay KUBİLAY
against Türkiye
lodged on 22 February 2023
communicated on 25 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
At the material time, the applicant was a member of the central executive board (merkez yönetim kurulu) of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (Halkların Demokratik Partisi (HDP)), a left-wing pro-Kurdish political party.
The application concerns the applicant’s pre-trial detention ordered in 2020 on several terrorism-related charges, within the context of a criminal investigation concerning certain demonstrations held in October 2014 and known as the “events of 6-8 October 2014” (see, for further information on these events, Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 17-27, 22 December 2020).
The applicant alleges that his pre-trial detention violated Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4, as well as Articles 10, 11 and 18 of the Convention.
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 Mergen and Others v. Turkey, nos. 44062/09 and 4 others, §§ 46-55, 31 May 2016, and 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, §§ 84-102, 5 July 2016)?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal a remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Had the applicant been unable to challenge effectively his detention because of the restriction imposed on his access to the investigation file (see Ceviz v. Turkey, no. 8140/08, § 41, 17 July 2012; Nedim Şener v. Turkey, no. 38270/11, § 82, 8 July 2014; and Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 14332/17 and 12 others, §§ 573-79, 8 November 2022)?
(b) Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy before the Constitutional Court, by which the lawfulness of his detention could be determined speedily, and his release ordered if necessary (see Khokhlov v. Cyprus, no. 53114/20, §§ 72‑83, 13 June 2023, and the case-law cited therein)?
4. Were the applicant’s rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention violated on account of his pre‑trial detention (see, mutatis mutandis, Nedim Şener v. Turkey, no. 38270/11, §§ 92‑119, 8 July 2014, and Lütfiye Zengin and Others v. Turkey, no. 36443/06, §§ 44-58, 14 April 2015)?
5. Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than that envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention (see Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, §§ 153-163, 17 March 2016, and Selahattin Demirtaş, cited above, §§ 421-438)?
The Government are invited to submit a copy of the investigation file in so far as it concerns the applicant and all documents in the file relating to criminal case brought against him.