Communicated on 4 April 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 56575/10 Lokman TAŞÇI against Turkey lodged on 6 September 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Lokman Ta şçı , was a Turkish national, who was born in 1993. After lodging the present application with the Court on 6 September 2010, the applicant died on 1 9 May 2012. By a letter dated 2 September 2013, the applicant ’ s father, Mr Nusrettin Taşçı , and his mother, Mrs Süreyya Taşçı , informed the Registry that they intended to pursue the application in his stead. They are rep resented before the Court by Mr M. Erbil, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. For practical reasons, Mr Lokman Taşçı will continue to be called “the applicant”.

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

On 26 April 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of intentionally causing bodily harm.

On 27 April 2009 the applicant was brought before the Ümraniye Magistrates ’ Court and was placed in detention on remand based on the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence, the risk of absconding and the risk of tampering with evidence .

On 29 July 2009 the Üsküdar public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant in the Üsküdar Juvenile Assize Court. He charged him with attempted murder.

Between 17 September 2009 and 21 September 2010 the first-instance court held nine hearings. During the proceedings, the first-instance court examined the applicant ’ s continued detention at the end of every hearing, either on its own motion or upon the applicant ’ s request. On each occasion, the court ordered the applicant ’ s continued detention having regard to the nature of the offence, the fact that the offence the applicant was charged with fell under Article 100 of the Criminal Procedural Code and the strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question.

At the hearings held on 21 January 2010 and 9 June 2010 respectively, the applicant ’ s release requests were rejected by the trial court. The applicant filed objections against these decisions. On 2 February 2010 and 16 June 2010, respectively, the Istanbul Juvenile Assize Court dismissed these objections. The court decided on the basis of the case file, without holding a public hearing. In delivering its decisions, the court also took into consideration the written opinion of the public prosecutors, which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative.

On 2 November 2010 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to eight years and ten months ’ imprisonment. The trial court released the applicant from detention on remand on the same day.

The applicant appealed against this judgment. On 25 December 2012 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and the case file was remitted to the first instance court.

On 22 May 2013 the first instance court decided to discontinue the case on the ground that the applicant had died on 19 May 2012.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand.

The applicant further complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. He contends that his right to have an effective remedy was breached since his objections were dismissed by the appeal courts based on the public prosecutors ’ written opinions, which were not communicated to him or to his representatives.

The applicant finally maintained under Article 5 § 5 that he had no right to compensation under domestic law in respect of his complaints under Articles 5 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard in particular to the fact that the applicant was a minor at the material time, was the length of his detention on remand in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

2. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms between the applicant and the prosecution respected in the present case?

3. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?