GÖKOĞLU AND ÇIÇEK v. TÜRKİYE and 5 other applications

Published on 23 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 41949/19 Engin GÖKOĞLU and Aycan ÇİÇEK against Türkiye and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 6 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ placement in and continued pre-trial detention. At the material time, the applicants were working at the People’s Law Office (Halkın Hukuk Bürosu). All the applicants, except Ms Sarıgül (the applicant in case no. 35421/21), were lawyers, while Ms Sarıgül was the office’s secretary. On various dates in September, November and December 2017 and in June 2019, the applicants were arrested and taken into custody on the grounds that they were a member or a leader of an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP/C (People’s Revolutionary Liberation Party/Front). The relevant magistrate’s courts ordered their pre-trial detention. The applicants appealed against the detention orders to no avail. On 11 April 2018 the Istanbul 37th Assize Court accepted the indictment against the applicants in the first, second, third and fourth applications and decided to extend their pre-trial detention. Between 10 and 14 September 2018 the 37th Assize Court held its first hearing in the criminal case against these applicants. Following this hearing, that court ordered the applicants’ release from pre-trial detention. Upon the prosecutor’s objection to that decision, the 37th Assize Court ordered the applicants’ pre‑trial detention once again on 16 and 17 September 2018. On 20 March 2019 the 37th Assize Court convicted the applicants for various terrorism‑related offences and sentenced them to varying periods of imprisonment. Regarding the applicants in applications nos. 35451/21 and 36145/21, the Istanbul 29th Assize Court accepted the indictment against them and decided to extend their pre-trial detention on 11 October 2019. They were released from pre-trial detention following the first hearing of the criminal case against them on 3 January 2020. On various dates during their pre-trial detention, the applicants lodged individual applications with the Constitutional Court, relying in particular on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention. The applicants in the first, second, third and fourth applications further alleged violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Constitutional Court declared these applications inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. Before the Court, the applicants complain of a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention. Under Article 5 § 1 (c), they allege that they were placed and kept in pre-trial detention without reasonable grounds to suspect them of having committed an offence. Relying on Article 5 § 3, they contend that the judicial decisions ordering and extending their detention were not sufficiently reasoned. They further allege that the restriction on access to the investigation file deprived them of the opportunity to effectively challenge the lawfulness of their detention in violation of Article 5 § 4. Relying on the same provision, the applicants in the first three applications also complain of the excessive length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. Lastly, the applicants in applications nos. 41949/19, 41955/19, 41961/19 and 25989/21 argue that their participation at peaceful demonstrations and their speeches at various gatherings were used as a basis for their initial and continued pre-trial detention in violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.  Were the applicants placed and kept in pre-trial detention in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can the applicants be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion” that they had committed an offence, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention? More specifically, were the items of evidence contained in the case file at the time of their placement and continued detention sufficient to persuade an objective observer that they may have committed the offences attributed to them (see Mergen and Others v. Turkey, nos. 44062/09 and 4 others, §§ 46–55, 31 May 2016, and Yüksel and Others v. Turkey, nos. 55835/09 and 2 others, §§ 51–60, 31 May 2016)?   2.  Did the domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the applicants’ pre-trial detention, in accordance with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84–102, 5 July 2016)?   3.  Did the applicants have at their disposal, in accordance with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, an effective procedure through which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention? More specifically:   (a)  Did the impossibility for the applicants and their representatives to have access to the investigation file deprive them of the possibility to effectively challenge their placement and continued pre-trial detention (Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 14332/17 and 12 others, §§ 573-79, 8 November 2022)?   (b)  In respect of applications nos. 41949/19, 41955/19 and 41961/19, was the procedure before the Constitutional Court, through which the applicants sought to challenge the lawfulness of their pre-trial detention, in conformity with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the length of that procedure compatible with the “speediness” requirement of that provision (Kavala v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, §§ 176-196, 10 December 2019)?   4.  In respect of application nos. 41949/19, 41955/19, 41961/19 and 25989/21, was there an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression and/or their freedom of peaceful assembly and association, within the meaning of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, by their pre‑trial detention based on their participation at peaceful demonstrations and their speeches at various gatherings? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society (see, mutatis mutandis, Nedim Şener v. Turkey, no. 38270/11, §§ 92-119, 8 July 2014, and Lütfiye Zengin and Others v. Turkey, no. 36443/06, §§ 44-58, 14 April 2015)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 41949/19 Gökoğlu and Çiçek v. Türkiye 30/07/2019 Engin GÖKOĞLU 1985 Tekirdağ Turkish Aycan ÇİÇEK 1984 Kocaeli Turkish Benan MOLU 2. 41955/19 Mandacı and Others v. Türkiye 30/07/2019 Ahmet MANDACI 1990 Çanakkale Turkish Didem BAYDAR ÜNSAL 1988 Ankara Turkish Ayşegül ÇAĞATAY GÖKÇE 1991 Ankara Turkish Benan MOLU 3. 41961/19 Özdemir and Others v. Türkiye 30/07/2019 Zehra ÖZDEMİR 1977 Istanbul Turkish Yağmur EREREN EVİN 1991 Ordu Turkish Ebru TİMTİK 1978 Istanbul Turkish Aytaç ÜNSAL 1988 Balıkesir Turkish Benan MOLU 4. 25989/21 Timtik v. Türkiye 30/04/2021 Barkın TİMTİK 1982 İstanbul Turkish Behiç AŞÇI 1965 Istanbul Turkish Aycan ÇİÇEK 1984 Kocaeli Turkish Engin GÖKOĞLU 1985 Tekirdağ Turkish Selçuk KOZAĞAÇLI 1972 İstanbul Turkish Ahmet MANDACI 1990 Çanakkale Turkish Yaprak TÜRKMEN 1984 Istanbul Turkish Aytaç ÜNSAL 1988 Balıkesir Turkish Özgür YILMAZ 1974 Tekirdağ Turkish Benan MOLU 5. 35451/21 Sarıgül v. Türkiye 01/07/2021 Gülser SARIGÜL 1965 İstanbul Turkish Çiğdem AKBULUT 6. 36145/21 Ağdede v. Türkiye 07/07/2021 Görkem AĞDEDE 1991 İstanbul Turkish Çiğdem AKBULUT