Published on 22 June 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 2696/21
Yasemin TINIK
against Türkiye
lodged on 11 December 2020
communicated on 1 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the searches conducted in the applicant’s house and office in the aftermath of the attempted coup d’etat of 15 July 2016, while the applicant was serving as a judge, as well as her pre-trial detention on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
Acting on the instructions of the Ankara public prosecutor’s office, the regional and provincial prosecutors’ offices initiated criminal investigations in respect of individuals suspected of being involved in the attempted coup. and in respect of other individuals, such as the applicant in the present case, who were not directly involved in the coup attempt but were alleged to have links to the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation / Parallel State Structure” (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması).
Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that her pre-trial detention between 13 and 20 October 2016 breached section 88 of Law no. 2802 and Article 91 of Law no. 5271. She argues that there had not been discovery in flagrante delicto in her case, and that the authorities were required to follow the specific procedure set out in the above-mentioned law provisions for judges’ pre-trial detention. She further criticised the lack of sufficient reasons of her pre-trial detention order and of the decisions extending it.
Relying on Article 8, the applicant further complains about the searches conducted in her house and office, claiming that they had been contrary to section 88 of Law no. 2802, which prohibits searches of judges’ houses or persons, except in cases of the discovery of an offence in flagrante delicto within the jurisdiction of the assize courts.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”, considering the procedural guarantees provided to judges under domestic law? Can the applicant be considered to have been detained on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that she had committed an offence? Moreover, was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the reasonable time requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 145-158 and 170‑195, 3 March 2020, and Turan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, §§ 79-92, 23 November 2021)?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the searches conducted in her house and office? If so, was the interference in accordance with the law in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, were the searches carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation (see Tercan v. Turkey, no. 6158/18, §§ 196-202, 29 June 2021)?