Communicated on 11 June 2020 Published on 29 June 2020

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 56483/16 Ä° brahim Ethem KURÄ°Åž against Turkey and 104 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

2 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

3 . During the night of 15 to 16 July 2016 a group of members of the Turkish armed forces calling themselves the “Peace at Home Council” attempted to carry out a military coup aimed at overthrowing the democratically installed parliament, government and President of Turkey.

4 . During the attempted coup, soldiers under the instigators ’ control bombarded several strategic State buildings, including the parliament building and the presidential compound, attacked the hotel where the President was staying, and held the Chief of General Staff hostage. They also attacked television channels and fired shots at demonstrators. During the night of violence, more than 250 people were killed and more than 2,500 were injured.

5 . The day after the attempted military coup, the national authorities blamed the network linked to Fetullah Gülen , a Turkish citizen living in Pennsylvania (United States of America) and considered to be the leader of an organisation known as FETÖ/PDY (“ Gülenist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). Several criminal investigations were subsequently initiated by the appropriate prosecuting authorities in respect of suspected members of that organisation.

6 . On 16 July 2016, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors ( Hakimler ve Savcılar Kurulu – hereinafter “HSK”) suspended from office 2,735 judges and prosecutors, including some of the applicants, for a period of three months, pursuant to Article 77 § 1 and Article 81 § 1 of Law no. 2802. The HSK held that there were strong suspicions that the judges were members of the terrorist organisation that had undertaken the attempted coup d ’ état and that their remaining in office would undermine the proper conduct of the investigation and the authority and reputation of the judiciary. In doing so, HSK relied on information and documents contained in investigation files transmitted to it before the attempted coup d ’ état , as well as on information obtained as a result of investigations carried out by the intelligence services.

7 . On 20 July 2016 the Government declared a state of emergency for a period of three months as from 21 July 2016; the state of emergency was subsequently extended for further periods of three months by the Council of Ministers, chaired by the President.

8 . On 21 July 2016 the Turkish authorities gave notice to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of derogation from the Convention under Article 15.

9 . During the state of emergency, the Council of Ministers chaired by the President passed thirty-seven legislative decrees (nos. 667-703) under Article 121 of the Constitution. One of them, Legislative Decree no. 667, published in the Official Gazette on 23 July 2016, provided in particular, under its Article 3, that the HSK was authorised to dismiss any of its members who were considered to belong to or be affiliated with or linked to terrorist organisations or organisations, structures or groups found by the National Security Council to have engaged in activities that were harmful to national security. The legislative decrees also placed significant restrictions on the procedural safeguards laid down in domestic law for anyone held in police custody or pre-trial detention (for example, extension of the period in which people could be held in police custody, and restrictions on access to case files and on the examination of objections against detention orders).

10 . On 10 August 2016, HSK further suspended 648 magistrates from their posts for a period of three months, including some of the applicants, on the grounds that they belonged to, or were affiliated with or linked to the FETÖ/PDY.

11 . By a decision of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 3 of Legislative Decree no. 667, the HSK, meeting in plenary session, dismissed 2,847 judges, all of whom were considered to be members of, affiliated with or linked to the FETÖ/PDY. Then, by a decision of 31 August 2016, it dismissed 543 other judges for the same reason. The applicants were thus dismissed from their functions.

12 . On 18 July 2018, the state of emergency was lifted.

(a) The applicants ’ arrests and pre-trial detention

13 . On 16 July 2016, the office for offences undermining the constitutional order of the Ankara prosecutor ’ s office opened a criminal investigation and notified all regional and departmental prosecutors. Acting within the framework of that investigation, the prosecutors initiated criminal investigations into the involvement, during or after the attempted coup d ’ état , of persons linked with the FETÖ/PDY and of those not directly involved but having links with that organisation, including some members of the judiciary.

14 . The applicants were taken into police custody on various dates in the course of those investigations. At the end of their detention in police custody, they were brought before the magistrate ’ s courts, which ordered their detention on remand. The magistrate ’ s courts relied essentially on the fact that the applicants had been suspended from their functions by the HSK on the grounds that they were members of the organisation that had undertaken the coup d ’ état , and that the Ankara public prosecutor ’ s office had requested that an investigation be initiated into their involvement. The judges took into consideration the nature of the offence with which the applicants were charged, the evidence adduced and the potential penalty. They also noted that the investigations into the attempted coup d ’ état 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 “catalogued” offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the “CCP”). The judges concluded that the applicants ’ pre-trial detention appeared, at that stage, to be a proportionate measure.

15 . Objections lodged by the applicants against the detention decisions were dismissed by other magistrate ’ s courts, in similar terms to the first decisions.

(b) Decisions on the continuation of the applicants ’ pre-trial detention and the dismissal of their objections

16 . 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 detention reviews, pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1 (ç), of Legislative Decree no. 668.

17 . In most cases, the magistrate ’ s courts ordered the continued pre-trial detention of the applicants, along with several other suspects. In their decisions, they essentially repeated the reasons given in the original detention decisions. 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. The judges also stressed the seriousness of the offence 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 detention were in accordance with the information, documents and evidence contained 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. They specified that since the suspects were former magistrates, there was a risk that they would try to influence or put pressure on the magistrates in office.

18 . In subsequent decisions on continued pre-trial detention, the magistrate ’ s courts also relied on the use of the ByLock encrypted messaging system by the persons concerned, and on witness statements.

19 . Objections lodged by the applicants were rejected by the magistrate ’ s courts, which relied on grounds similar to those indicated in their previous decisions.

20 . At the investigation stage, both applications for extension of the detention and objections to decisions to continue detention were examined on the basis of the case files, pursuant to Article 6, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 667.

21 . On various dates, the first-instance courts convicted some of the applicants of membership of a terrorist organisation. The criminal proceedings against them are still ongoing.

22 . During the trial, the trial courts, ruling either at the end of the hearings or during reviews carried out between the hearings, ordered the applicants ’ continued detention. Appeals lodged against those decisions were dismissed.

(c) Individual applications to the Constitutional Court

23 . The applicants each lodged one or more individual applications before the Constitutional Court. On different dates, the Constitutional Court declared the applications inadmissible. As can be seen from those decisions, the various complaints submitted by the applicants were declared inadmissible on the following grounds:

24 . With regard to the lawfulness of the applicants ’ detention, the Constitutional Court noted that, according to the indictments and/or the investigation files, the applicants were users of ByLock . It considered that, given the characteristics of that application, its use or its downloading for use could be considered by the investigating authorities as evidence of a link with FETÖ/PDY. In this connection, it referred to its judgment in the case of Aydın Yavuz , delivered on 20 June 2017. The use of encryption by the applicants had been considered, depending on the circumstances of the case, as “strong evidence” that they had committed the offence of membership of FETÖ/PDY. Consequently, it could not be concluded that the investigating authorities or the courts that had decided on detention had taken an unfounded and arbitrary approach. In addition, taking into account the reasons given in the decisions on detention and the dismissal of objections, the Constitutional Court held that there were grounds for detention and that the measure was proportionate. It also considered the applicants ’ grievances to be manifestly unfounded. As concerns some of the applicants, the Constitutional Court noted that the indictments and/or investigation files contained witness statements indicating that the applicants were members of FETÖ/PDY. They had therefore been detained on the basis of “reasonable grounds to suspect” that they had committed an offence.

25 . As regards the complaints that the magistrate ’ s courts were not independent and impartial, and that the examination of the appeals by the same judges had deprived the applicants of an effective remedy against the deprivation of liberty, the Constitutional Court noted that it had already examined those complaints in several cases. Having taken into consideration the structural characteristics of the magistrate ’ s courts, it had concluded that the complaints were manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court held that there was no reason to reach a different conclusion in the applicants ’ cases. It also declared inadmissible the applicants ’ complaints that magistrates lacked knowledge of certain procedural guarantees, as well as their complaints that the justice of the peace had lacked jurisdiction to decide on detention, as manifestly ill-founded. Given the nature of the offence with which the applicants were charged and the manner in which it had been committed, the Constitutional Court considered that it was appropriate to accept the ruling of the magistrate ’ s courts which had ordered the applicants ’ detention, and found no error of assessment or arbitrariness.

26 . With regard to the absence of a hearing during the review of the detention decision, the Constitutional Court considered that there was no reason to depart from its landmark decision in the case of Aydın Yavuz , in which it had considered that the absence of a hearing during the review of the detention decision, lasting approximately nine months, had not violated the right to liberty and security. It therefore considered that those complaints were manifestly ill-founded.

27 . With regard to the restriction on access to the investigation file, the Constitutional Court considered, after examining the transcripts of the hearing, that the decisions relating to the applicants ’ detention, the objections against those decisions lodged by the applicants or their lawyers, and the documents and information contained in the investigation file, that the applicants had been informed of the elements that constituted the main grounds for detention, that they had had sufficient knowledge of their content and that they had been given the opportunity to challenge the decisions on their detention. It also found those grievances to be manifestly ill-founded.

28 . With regard to the applicants ’ complaints regarding the lawfulness and length of their police custody, based on its well-established case-law on the subject, the Constitutional Court declared those complaints inadmissible for failure to exhaust the compensation remedy provided for in Article 141 of the CCP.

29 . The Constitutional Court dismissed the complaints lodged by some of the applicants concerning the lack of an oral hearing, non-notification or belated notification of the detention decision, and lack of or delay in the examination of the case by the magistrate ’ s courts on the grounds that they had failed to use the compensation remedy provided for by Article 141 of the CCP.

30 . The Constitutional Court also dismissed the remaining complaints on the grounds that the applicants had not used the appropriate remedies.

31 . The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in Alparslan Altan v. Turkey (no. 12778/17, §§ 46-64, 16 April 2019) and Baş v. Turkey , (no. 66448/18, §§ 52-104, 3 March 2020).

COMPLAINTS

32 . The applicants complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention for the following reasons:

- Some of the applicants claim that they were remanded in detention in breach of the procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law for prosecutors and judges.

- Some of the applicants complain that they were held in detention in the absence of any suspicion that they had committed an offence and without relevant and sufficient grounds.

- Some of the applicants claim that the length of their pre-trial detention was excessive.

- Some of the applicants complain that the domestic courts did not hold a hearing when reviewing their pre-trial detention, that they were not notified of the opinion of the public prosecutor on those reviews and that their access to the investigation file was restricted.

- Some of the applicants complain that their release requests and objections were not examined or were examined belatedly.

- Some of the applicants complain that the decisions to extend their detention were not notified to them or were notified belatedly, and that therefore they were unable to appeal against those decisions.

- Some of the applicants complain that they did not receive effective legal assistance and facilities to challenge their detention; in particular, their communication with their lawyers was monitored by the prison authorities.

- Some of the applicants complain that the time taken by the Constitutional Court to conduct its examination of the case was excessive.

- Lastly, some applicants allege that there was no remedy available to them to obtain compensation.

The specific complaints in respect of each applicant can be found in the appended table.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

On the basis of the complaints communicated in accordance with the list in the Appendix

1. ( a) Did the applicants ’ pre-trial detention take place “in accordance with the law”, in particular taking into consideration the procedural guarantees provided to the judges and prosecutors by domestic law?

(b) Can the applicants be considered to have been detained on the basis of “reasonable grounds to suspect” 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)?

In particular, the parties are invited to answer this question taking into account ,

- on the one hand, 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, and

- on the other hand, the fact that the Constitutional Court based the existence of reasonable suspicion on evidence discovered after the decisions had been taken to detain the applicants.

2. Can it be considered that the judges who ordered the applicants ’ pre-trial detention and examined the objections lodged against that measure fulfilled their obligations to provide relevant and sufficient grounds in support of the deprivation of liberty in question (see, in particular, Buzadji v. Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 102, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?

3. Was the length of the applicants ’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

4. 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:

- that 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;

- because of the restriction imposed on their access to the case file, they had been unable to challenge effectively their detention;

- that their objections had not been examined or had been examined belatedly;

- that the decisions to extend their detention had not been notified to them or had been notified belatedly, so they had been unable to lodge objections against them;

- that they had had no effective legal assistance or facilities to challenge their detention; in particular, that their communication with their lawyers had been monitored;

- and lastly, that the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine their individual applications had been protracted.

5. Was the compensation remedy provided for by Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure considered an effective remedy for complaints concerning lack of an oral hearing, for failure to notify or belated notification of the detention decision and, lastly, lack of or delay in the examination by the magistrate ’ s court under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? If so, the Government are requested to produce a copy of the court decisions awarding compensation, on the basis of those provisions, to a litigant in a situation similar to that of the applicants.

6. Did the applicants have, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, an effective and enforceable right in court to obtain compensation for their detention, which they consider to have been contrary to Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no. Case title

Date Of Intro

Complaints for each application

1

56483/16 KuriÅŸ v. Turkey

30/09/2016

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

2

75881/16 GeleÅŸ v. Turkey

22/11/2016

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file No effective remedy to compensation

3

1101/17 BozoÄŸlu v. Turkey

01/12/2016

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file

4

12183/17 M.D. v. Turkey

11/01/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 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 Failure to communicate the prosecutor ’ s opinion

5

12467/17 Aşılar v. Turkey

20/01/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of hearing during the detention review

6

14626/17 Aydın v. Turkey

12/01/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file

7

14638/17 Korkmaz v. Turkey

02/02/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file

8

14652/17 Taşkın v. Turkey

02/02/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file No effective remedy to compensation

9

14669/17 Bozkurt v. Turkey

23/01/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file

10

14967/17 Kalkan v. Turkey

26/01/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Failure to communicate the prosecutor ’ s opinion

11

15051/17 Åženli v. Turkey

26/01/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure to communicate the prosecutor ’ s opinion Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention

12

20092/17 ErdoÄŸan v. Turkey

23/02/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

13

27336/17 Kılınçlı v. Turkey

24/02/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection Failure to communicate the prosecutor ’ s opinion

14

28577/17 Altintop v. Turkey

16/01/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file

15

30652/17 Akbilek v. Turkey

17/02/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review No effective remedy to compensation Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

16

39578/17 Kaya v. Turkey

17/03/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention

17

40067/17 Rusum v. Turkey

05/05/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

18

40704/17 Bayraktar v. Turkey

28/03/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file

19

41477/17 Apaçık v. Turkey

24/04/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Lack of hearing during the detention review

20

41479/17 Ãœnal v. Turkey

18/05/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file

21

41516/17 Zengin v. Turkey

11/04/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file

22

41569/17 Ünlü v. Turkey

14/04/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

23

41619/17 Gültekin v. Turkey

05/05/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file No effective remedy to compensation

24

41823/17 Güleç v. Turkey

28/03/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

25

41894/17 Turhal v. Turkey

07/04/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure to communicate the prosecutor ’ s opinion Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention

26

42190/17 Kılıç v. Turkey

28/04/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

27

42848/17 Åževik v. Turkey

04/04/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file No effective remedy to compensation

28

43590/17 AydoÄŸan v. Turkey

04/04/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

29

43702/17 Can v. Turkey

26/04/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

30

43763/17 Kul v. Turkey

04/05/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection

31

43953/17 Tekkoyun v. Turkey

28/04/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Failure to communicate the prosecutor ’ s opinion

32

44803/17 Gökkaya v. Turkey

03/05/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

33

48765/17 Parıltı v. Turkey

05/05/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court

34

49247/17 Çelik v. Turkey

24/03/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention

35

51526/17 ÅžimÅŸek v. Turkey

22/03/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

36

58445/17 TekintaÅŸ v. Turkey

30/06/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure to communicate the prosecutor ’ s opinion

37

58512/17 Togay v. Turkey

07/02/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

38

58551/17 Yüzlü v. Turkey

07/07/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review

39

59691/17 Bakırcı v. Turkey

13/02/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons No effective remedy to compensation

40

60284/17 Öztürk v. Turkey

23/06/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

41

60332/17 Kara v. Turkey

04/07/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

42

60335/17 Åžahin v. Turkey

05/07/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law

43

60374/17 Akın v. Turkey

10/07/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file

44

60382/17 Dere v. Turkey

04/07/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file

45

60999/17 Bostan v. Turkey

01/08/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

46

61592/17 Akarsu v. Turkey

15/06/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

47

62020/17 KardeÅŸler v. Turkey

02/05/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

48

62123/17 Uslan v. Turkey

26/04/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file

49

62610/17 Akpınar v. Turkey

25/01/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Failure to communicate the prosecutor ’ s opinion

50

62737/17 Uz v. Turkey

01/02/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection Failure to communicate the prosecutor ’ s opinion Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention

51

62750/17 Gürgen v. Turkey

14/06/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court

52

62770/17 DoÄŸan v. Turkey

02/05/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file

53

62917/17 Duran v. Turkey

03/05/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention

54

63724/17 Karadeniz v. Turkey

14/04/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file No effective remedy to compensation

55

63736/17 Sarpkaya v. Turkey

13/06/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court

56

63769/17 Öztürk v. Turkey

13/06/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review

57

63771/17 Ekinci v. Turkey

18/01/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file No effective remedy to compensation Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

58

63778/17 Duman v. Turkey

29/05/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file

59

63802/17 Atıcı v. Turkey

29/05/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file

60

63841/17 Dağlı v. Turkey

31/07/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file

61

63973/17 Demir v. Turkey

25/04/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file

62

64047/17 Kablan v. Turkey

24/01/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention

63

66686/17 Kıran v. Turkey

23/01/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons. Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection.

64

66689/17 M. T . v. Turkey

23/05/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

65

69580/17 Uyar v. Turkey

21/07/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

66

69728/17 Mercimek v. Turkey

03/08/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court

67

70538/17 Ünüvar v. Turkey

08/08/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file

68

70801/17 ArslanoÄŸlu v. Turkey

18/08/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

69

71343/17 Yolaçar v. Turkey

15/09/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention

70

71995/17 Yurtdakal v. Turkey

19/04/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

71

72339/17 Yılmaz v. Turkey

25/07/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file

72

74763/17 Albayrak v. Turkey

03/10/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

73

74818/17 Bağcı v. Turkey

11/10/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file

74

77593/17 Aslan v. Turkey

16/02/2018

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention

75

79060/17 Oktar v. Turkey

14/04/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention

76

79632/17 Tekkoyun v. Turkey

19/10/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court

77

82521/17 Pazar v. Turkey

13/06/2017

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

78

84065/17 Çakmak v. Turkey

13/11/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

79

84141/17 Akkaya v. Turkey

16/11/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

80

84630/17 Çolak v. Turkey

22/11/2017

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court

81

6246/18 Kılıç v. Turkey

22/01/2018

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

82

6504/18 Avcı v. Turkey

16/01/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure to communicate the prosecutor ’ s opinion Lack of hearing during the detention review

83

8021/18 Can v. Turkey

02/02/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of hearing during the detention review

84

9589/18 Akın v. Turkey

13/02/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file

85

12531/18 Akarsu v. Turkey

08/03/2018

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

86

12596/18 Genç v. Turkey

09/02/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file

87

12606/18 AkkuÅŸ v. Turkey

07/02/2018

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

88

12850/18 Belge v. Turkey

05/03/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of hearing during the detention review

89

15312/18 Uzun v. Turkey

16/03/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

90

15892/18 Ercan v. Turkey

09/03/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention

91

16812/18 Özdemir v. Turkey

27/03/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention

92

16949/18 Bekci v. Turkey

26/03/2018

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

93

17137/18 Özdemir v. Turkey

19/03/2018

Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

94

17552/18 Kaya v. Turkey

19/02/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

95

18059/18 Durak v. Turkey

06/04/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court

96

20018/18 Yorulmaz v. Turkey

02/03/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file

97

20319/18 Hançerkıran v. Turkey

21/04/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons

98

22181/18 KetenoÄŸlu v. Turkey

04/05/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection Lack of hearing during the detention review

99

25239/18 Ä°lci v. Turkey

18/05/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection, Lack/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

100

27032/18 Bayana v. Turkey

30/05/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of hearing during the detention review

101

31224/18 Gül v. Turkey

22/06/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons 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/Difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities

102

44794/18 Temel v. Turkey

07/09/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Failure/Delay in examining requests for enlargement/objection Lack of hearing during the detention review Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention

103

47422/18 Sezgin v. Turkey

21/09/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file

104

50781/18 Yapar v. Turkey

15/10/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Length of pre-trial detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court Lack of hearing during the detention review

105

1493/19 Özdemir Şeker v. Turkey

21/12/2018

Failure to comply with procedural guarantees provided for in domestic law Lack of reasonable suspicion/relevant and sufficient reasons Restriction of access to the investigation file