Published on 7 April 2025
 
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 31686/17
Levent KAYA against Türkiye
and 53 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 17 March 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants, who are all Turkish nationals, 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”). Some of the applicants were judges or prosecutors at the material time.
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):
-  They were apprehended outside of Turkish territory by individuals purported to be Turkish agents and subsequently held in incommunicado detention until their eventual transfer to Türkiye;
-  They were detained in the absence of any suspicion that they committed an offence;
-  They had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them;
-  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 magistrates’ courts who ruled on their pre-trial detention lacked independence and impartiality;
-  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 objections to their pre-trial detention or their requests for release were not examined or examined belatedly;
-  The objections to their detention after conviction or their requests for release were not examined or examined belatedly by the appeal courts or the Court of Cassation;
-  The decisions extending their detention were not notified to them, or were notified with a delay, which prevented them from appealing against those decisions;
-  The time taken by the Constitutional Court to conduct its examination of their individual applications was excessive.
The applicant in application no. 45757/20 further alleges that he was subjected to treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention by Turkish agents during his alleged period of incommunicado detention outside of Turkish territory.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Questions pertaining to application no. 45757/201.  (a)  Did the applicant exhaust all effective domestic remedies concerning his complaints raised under Article 3, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
(b)  Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
(c)  Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), has an effective investigation been carried out by the domestic authorities in a manner compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
Questions pertaining only to applications nos. 21255/19, 46982/19, 45757/20, 47151/20, 48776/20 and 6428/22Question on the facts
2.  Do the facts of the cases demonstrate a jurisdictional link between Türkiye and the applicants for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention by virtue of Türkiye, through its agents, exercising authority and control over the individuals in question (compare Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, §§ 133-137 and 149-150, ECHR 2011)?
Questions on the law
3.  Was the applicants’ apprehension outside of Turkish territory by Turkish agents:
(a)  “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and based on any judicial or administrative decision (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 230-233, ECHR 2012, and Al-Hawsawi v. Lithuania, no. 6383/17, §§ 223-225, 16 January 2024 and the case-law cited therein)?
(b)  based on any extradition proceedings?
The Government are requested to provide copies of all documents and information pertaining to any extradition proceedings initiated against the aforementioned applicants.
4.  Were the applicants informed promptly, in a language which they understood, of the reasons for their apprehension and the charges against them, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention? If so, on what date did this occur (see Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 97 and 99, 17 September 2020, and Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46221/99, 14 December 2000)?
5.  Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty pending their transfer to Türkiye, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Moustahi v. France, no. 9347/14,
§§ 103-104, 25 June 2020)?
Questions pertaining to applications nos. 31686/17 and 7685/206.  Did the applicants exhaust all available and effective domestic remedies regarding their complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention, as required by Article 35 § 1, in particular, considering the Turkish Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the statutory thirty-day
time-limit and the formal requirements imposed for the admissibility of the applicants’ individual applications (see, for general principles, mutatis mutandis, Üçdağ v. Turkey, no. 23314/19, § 38, 31 August 2021 and the cases cited therein)?
Questions pertaining to the applications on the basis of the complaints communicated in accordance with the list in the Appendix7.  Can the applicants be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion” that they had committed an offence, for the purposes 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), taking into account, in particular, 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? Moreover, has the Constitutional Court based the existence of reasonable suspicion on evidence discovered after the decisions had been taken to detain the applicants (see, in particular, Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, § 185, 3 March 2020)?
8.  (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?
9.  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:
(a)  the magistrates’ courts called upon to decide on the applicants’ pre-trial detention lacked independence and impartiality, particularly given the alleged links between the judges and the prosecution authorities involved in the proceedings (see, for example, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, §§ 93-99, ECHR 2009, and Baş, cited above, §§ 266-267);
(b)  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, cited above, §§ 212-214, and Kocamış and Kurt v. Turkey, no. 227/13, §§ 34-35, 25 January 2022);
(c)  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);
(d)  their objections to their pre-trial detention had not been examined or had been examined belatedly (see, for example, Shannon v. Latvia, no. 32214/03, §§ 67-74, 24 November 2009);
(e)  their objections to their post-conviction detention had not been examined or had been examined belatedly (see, for example, Stollenwerk v. Germany, no. 8844/12, § 36, 7 September 2017; Filat v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 11657/16, §§ 23-36, 7 December 2021; and Yılmaz Aydemir v. Türkiye, no. 61808/19, §§ 36-37, 23 May 2023).
(f)  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);
(g)  the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine their individual applications had been excessive (compare for the relevant principles Kavala v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, §§ 181-184, 10 December 2019);
10.  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 complaints concerning (i) the lack of an oral hearing during the review of detention; (ii) the restriction of access to the investigation file; (iii) the non‑notification or belated notification of the detention decision; (iv) the delay in the examination of the objection against detention by the magistrates’ courts; (v) the failure to/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention and (vi) the lack of or delay in the examination of the objection against post-conviction detention by the appeal courts or the Court of Cassation (compare, for example, Hebat Aslan and Firas Aslan v. Turkey, no. 15048/09, §§ 92-93, 28 October 2014)?
For each of the above questions, the parties are requested to provide all the necessary details, supported by relevant documents from the domestic files.
 
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
 
Represented by
Complaints
 31686/17
Kaya v. Türkiye
19/04/2017
Levent KAYA
1975
Amasya
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 54122/18
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
24/10/2018
Dursun YILMAZ
1969
Kırşehir
 
Lale KARADAŞ
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 21255/19
Karaman v. Türkiye
12/04/2019
Turgay KARAMAN
1974
Denizli
İrem GÜNEŞ
Illegal rendition and incommunicado detention
Lack of information on the reasons for arrest
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during pre-trial detention
Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court
 43427/19
Aktosun v. Türkiye
05/08/2019
Murat Can AKTOSUN
1991
Bursa
Mustafa SAĞSÖZ
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 46982/19
Karabina v. Türkiye
19/08/2019
Yusuf KARABİNA
1974
Istanbul
Fatih ŞAHİNLER
Illegal rendition and incommunicado detention
Lack of information on the reasons for arrest
 49437/19
Almacı v. Türkiye
11/09/2019
Mesut ALMACI
1989
Ankara
 
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of independence and impartiality of the domestic courts
Lack of hearing during the detention review
 
 53196/19
Bilgen v. Türkiye
23/08/2019
Rasim İsa BİLGEN
1968
Kocaeli
Hacer ŞAHİN
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during pre-trial detention
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court
 53302/19
Güngör v. Türkiye
20/09/2019
Ali Önder GÜNGÖR
1980
Adana
 
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of independence and impartiality of the domestic courts
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court
 57420/19
Gül v. Türkiye
24/10/2019
Enver GÜL
1970
Hatay
Dudu ERTUNÇ
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 58950/19
Altan v. Türkiye
31/10/2019
Alparslan ALTAN
1968
Kırıkkale
Mehmet ORAK
Restriction of access to the investigation file
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 1098/20
Akca v. Türkiye
20/12/2019
Mustafa Ali AKCA
1986
Manisa
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 5779/20
Yıldız v. Türkiye
05/11/2019
Enes YILDIZ
1988
Manisa
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 7685/20
Girgin v. Türkiye
20/01/2020
Ali Ulvi GİRGİN
1981
Balıkesir
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
 10840/20
Çıngı v. Türkiye
07/02/2020
Devlet ÇINGI
1974
Kırşehir
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 14971/20
Yirik v. Türkiye
02/03/2020
Şevket YİRİK
1983
Kocaeli
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 
 16926/20
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
31/03/2020
Resül YILDIRIM
1969
Istanbul
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 
 36818/20
Büyükelyas v. Türkiye
17/08/2020
Kemal BÜYÜKELYAS
1959
Denizli
Tarık AVŞAR
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 43482/20
Evgin v. Türkiye
07/09/2020
Coșkun EVGİN
1980
Antalya
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 43982/20
Okur Yirik v. Türkiye
02/09/2020
Aslıhan OKUR YİRİK
1984
Gebze
Şevket YİRİK
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 45757/20
Erdem v. Türkiye
06/10/2020
Mustafa ERDEM
1974
Istanbul
Fatif ŞAHİNLER
Ill-treatment during incommunicado detention
Illegal rendition and incommunicado detention
Lack of information on the reasons for arrest
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
 47151/20
Özpınar v. Türkiye
15/10/2020
Osman ÖZPINAR
1972
Istanbul
Barış ÇELİK
Illegal rendition and incommunicado detention
Lack of information on the reasons for arrest
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
Restriction of access to the investigation file
 
 48776/20
Karakaya v. Türkiye
30/10/2020
Osman KARAKAYA
1972
Istanbul
Fatih ŞAHİNLER
Illegal rendition and incommunicado detention
Lack of information on the reasons for arrest
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court
 52269/20
Piri v. Türkiye
05/11/2020
Özcan PİRİ
1979
Çankırı
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 53360/20
Kırım v. Türkiye
19/11/2020
Cemil KIRIM
1979
Karabük
 
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 54428/20
Çığır v. Türkiye
16/06/2020
Ali ÇIĞIR
1971
Konya
 
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 
 54842/20
Celepoğlu v. Türkiye
16/10/2020
Hamza CELEPOĞLU
1969
Ankara
Hasan TOK
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 55354/20
Kocabaş v. Türkiye
26/11/2020
Doğan KOCABAŞ
1993
Manisa
 
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 1983/21
Atlar v. Türkiye
22/12/2020
Yusuf ATLAR
1983
Hatay
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 8860/21
Ceylan v. Türkiye
22/10/2020
Nadir CEYLAN
1974
Konya
 
Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 8892/21
Demirkapı v. Türkiye
28/01/2021
Cuma DEMİRKAPI
1986
Kocaeli
Ebru DEMİRKAPI
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 9928/21
Karakuş v. Türkiye
29/01/2021
Bilal KARAKUŞ
1973
Balıkesir
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 10689/21
Demiray v. Türkiye
03/02/2021
Kemal DEMİRAY
1971
Çorum
 
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
Lack of hearing during the detention review
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 
 14676/21
Arpacı v. Türkiye
28/07/2020
İsmail ARPACI
1982
Elazığ
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 
 15927/21
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
02/03/2021
Tahsin YILDIRIM
1976
Kırıkkale
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 
 20078/21
Karakaya v. Türkiye
06/04/2021
Halil KARAKAYA
1977
Afyonkarahisar
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 
 24416/21
Vardar and Kara v. Türkiye
22/03/2021
Engin VARDAR
1985
Adana
Gökhan KARA
1986
Elazığ
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 
 32988/21
Yuyucu v. Türkiye
04/06/2021
Selman YUYUCU
1986
Kocaeli
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 36653/21
Emrem v. Türkiye
02/07/2021
Faruk EMREM
1976
Istanbul
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 56345/21
Öztürk v. Türkiye
12/11/2021
Özkan ÖZTÜRK
1981
Ankara
 
Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 57881/21
Tavla v. Türkiye
19/11/2021
Kemal TAVLA
1984
Çankırı
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 2558/22
Efeoğlu v. Türkiye
24/12/2021
Beycan EFEOĞLU
1976
Bursa
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 6428/22
Eker v. Türkiye
21/01/2022
İbrahim EKER
1972
İzmir
Kübra GÜLAÇTI
Illegal rendition and incommunicado detention
Lack of information on the reasons for arrest
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
 13406/22
Gül v. Türkiye
03/03/2022
Selami GÜL
1989
Istanbul
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 16556/22
Yıldız v. Türkiye
23/03/2022
Hıdır YILDIZ
1974
Isparta
 
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 17526/22
Bişer v. Türkiye
25/03/2022
Levent BİŞER
1976
Afyonkarahisar
Dudu ERTUNÇ
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 25708/22
Sağlam v. Türkiye
05/04/2022
Ali SAĞLAM
1985
Adana
 
Lack of reasonable suspicion
Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention
Length of pre-trial detention
 25884/22
Canpolat v. Türkiye
13/04/2022
Turan CANPOLAT
1968
Elazığ
Muhammed CANPOLAT
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 
 38546/22
Artun v. Türkiye
20/07/2022
Ramazan ARTUN
1973
Kocaeli
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 41008/22
Akdemir v. Türkiye
29/07/2022
Adnan AKDEMİR
1975
Ankara
 
Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 49529/22
Karataş v. Türkiye
07/10/2022
Bekir KARATAŞ
1974
Ankara
Ayşe Süeda ÜNAL
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 3699/23
Taşcıoğlu v. Türkiye
03/01/2023
Ahmet TAŞCIOĞLU
1974
Yozgat
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 9214/23
Aydoğmuş v. Türkiye
23/01/2023
Murat AYDOĞMUŞ
1985
Ankara
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 19101/23
Gök v. Türkiye
13/04/2023
Bilal GÖK
1984
Ankara
 
Mehmet KOYUNCU
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention
 40930/23
Erdem v. Türkiye
08/11/2023
Erdoğan ERDEM
1966
Erzurum
 
Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention