Published on 16 December 2024
 
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 25347/18
Erol KÖKÇÜ against Türkiye
and 29 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 29 November 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants, on suspicion of being involved in the attempted coup d’état that took place on 15 July 2016 and membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY (“Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). At the material time, most of the applicants were serving in the army as senior army officers, field officers or private soldiers. Some of the applicants were serving or former police officers.
Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants raise the following complaints (see the appended table for detailed information as to the specific complaints raised by each applicant):
-  There were no relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their initial and/or continued pre-trial detention;
-  The length of their pre-trial detention was excessive;
-  The reviews of detention took place without a hearing and they were not notified of the opinion of the public prosecutor on those reviews;
-  Their access to the investigation files was restricted;
-  The decisions extending their pre-trial detention were not notified to them, or were notified with a delay, which prevented them from appealing against those decisions;
-  They did not benefit from effective legal assistance and facilities to challenge their detention, having particular regard to the fact that their communication with their lawyers was restricted and monitored by the prison authorities.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
On the basis of the complaints communicated in accordance with the list in the Appendix
Complaints under Article 5 of the Convention
1.  (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)?
 
(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, 5 July 2016)?
 
(ii).  Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
 
2.  (a)  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 the 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 (compare, for example, Hebat Aslan and Firas Aslan v. Turkey, no. 15048/09, §§ 92-93, 28 October 2014)?
 
(b)  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 (see, in particular, Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 212-214, 3 March 2020, and Kocamış and Kurt v. Turkey, no. 227/13, §§ 34-35, 25 January 2022);
 
(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 (see, inter alia, Ceviz v. Turkey, no. 8140/08, § 41, 17 July 2012);
 
(iii)  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 (compare, for example, Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, § 83, 22 November 2007);
 
(iv)  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 restricted and monitored (see, mutatis mutandis, Černák v. Slovakia, no. 36997/08, § 78, 17 December 2013).
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX
 
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
Complaints
1.
25347/18
Kökçü v. Türkiye
15/05/2018
Erol KÖKÇÜ
1975
Kocaeli
Turkish
 
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
2.
14217/19
Aydoğan v. Türkiye
28/02/2019
Çetin AYDOĞAN
1974
Ankara
Turkish
Demet REÇBER ÖZTÜRK
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
3.
16581/19
Keskin v. Türkiye
21/02/2019
Kemal KESKİN
1982
Trabzon
Turkish
 
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
4.
20311/19
Topalca v. Türkiye
25/03/2019
Ahmet Serdar TOPALCA
1976
Istanbul
Turkish
Casim YILMAZ
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
5.
32678/20
Horoz v. Türkiye
21/07/2020
Recep HOROZ
1983
Istanbul
Turkish
Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
6.
35532/20
Toprak v. Türkiye
12/08/2020
Hamza TOPRAK
1987
Ankara
Turkish
Melike ÖNAL TOPRAK
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion
7.
36985/20
Durgunlu v. Türkiye
10/08/2020
Emre DURGUNLU
1988
Ankara
Turkish
 
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
8.
42448/20
Baran v. Türkiye
16/09/2020
Selim BARAN
1980
Ankara
Turkish
Melike ÖNAL TOPRAK
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion
9.
46363/20
Oğuz v. Türkiye
14/10/2020
Ahmet Tamer OĞUZ
1980
Ankara
Turkish
Melike ÖNAL TOPRAK
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion
10.
46590/20
Karataş v. Türkiye
02/10/2020
Murat KARATAŞ
1987
Mersin
Turkish
 
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
11.
50911/20
Özdemir v. Türkiye
03/11/2020
Ahmet ÖZDEMİR
1977
Ankara
Turkish
 
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
12.
51834/20
Ünlü v. Türkiye
24/07/2020
Osman ÜNLÜ
1958
Ankara
Turkish
Ayşe ÖZDEMIRCIOĞLU
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
13.
52109/20
İmrenk v. Türkiye
03/11/2020
Semih Burak İMRENK
1994
Istanbul
Turkish
Hasan Huseyin KOCATURK
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
14.
28472/21
Birel v. Türkiye
17/05/2021
İlker BIREL
1976
Samsun
Turkish
Mustafa BİREL
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention
Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion
15.
14031/22
Sandık v. Türkiye
14/03/2022
Abdullah Emre SANDIK
1988
Konya
Turkish
Mehmet Ertuğrul TÜTÜNCÜ
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
16.
22848/22
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
27/04/2022
Necip YILMAZ
1964
Ankara
Turkish
Serap YILMAZ
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
17.
30378/22
Türk v. Türkiye
27/05/2022
Ahmet Ali TÜRK
1983
Istanbul
Turkish
 
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
18.
43823/22
Tosun v. Türkiye
23/08/2022
Selim TOSUN
1990
Kütahya
Turkish
 
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
19.
47579/22
Hacıpaşalıoğlu v. Türkiye
29/09/2022
Fatih HACIPAŞALIOĞLU
1984
Ankara
Turkish
Fatma HACIPAŞALIOĞLU
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention
Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion
Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities
20.
3010/23
Erken v. Türkiye
15/12/2022
Adem ERKEN
1986
Samsun
Turkish
 
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
21.
9909/23
Yayla v. Türkiye
06/02/2023
Murat YAYLA
1978
Kirikkale
Turkish
Tuğba YAYLA
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
22.
37743/23
Hediye v. Türkiye
18/08/2023
Murat HEDİYE
1987
Denizli
Turkish
 
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
23.
41659/23
Deniz v. Türkiye
01/11/2023
Furkan DENİZ
1996
Istanbul
Turkish
Sumru AKTAŞ ALBAY
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention
24.
816/24
Dündar v. Türkiye
29/11/2023
Emre DÜNDAR
1986
Ankara
Turkish
Ahmet Yasin BEL
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
25.
3393/24
Özcan v. Türkiye
31/01/2024
Alican ÖZCAN
1972
Diyarbakır
Turkish
Zeynep UZUNALİ
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention
26.
5006/24
Kayabası v. Türkiye
12/02/2024
Süleyman KAYABAŞI
1986
İzmir
Turkish
Zeynep UZUNALİ
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention
Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion
27.
6150/24
Altıntaş v. Türkiye
13/02/2024
Mehmet ALTINTAŞ
1985
Sakarya
Turkish
 
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
28.
6161/24
Peker v. Türkiye
13/02/2024
Murat PEKER
1977
Balıkesir
Turkish
 
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention
29.
6222/24
Yıldız v. Türkiye
13/02/2024
Levent YILDIZ
1978
Sakarya
Turkish
 
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention
30.
6240/24
Gündoğdu v. Türkiye
13/02/2024
Rıdvan GÜNDOĞDU
1989
İzmir
Turkish
 
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Length of pre-trial detention