Background
The Court jointly examined eight applications concerning periods of pre-trial detention in Türkiye ranging from approximately nine months to more than six years. The applicants principally alleged that their detention had lasted unreasonably long and had been ordered or extended without relevant and sufficient reasons.
The domestic courts relied on grounds including the seriousness or nature of the alleged offenses, the strength of the suspicion, potential sentences, risks of absconding or interference with evidence, and the classification of certain charges as “catalogue offenses.” The applicants challenged features such as repetitive or fragile reasoning, collective detention orders, unsupported assumptions, failures to consider alternatives to detention, and lack of diligence. Some applicants also complained that the procedures for reviewing the lawfulness of their detention were ineffective or deficient.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously joined the applications, declared them admissible, and held that all eight disclosed a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of the unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention. Applying its well-established case-law, the Court found no fact or argument that justified reaching a different conclusion from earlier cases involving comparable defects.
For the applicants who raised additional complaints under Article 5 § 4, the Court also found violations relating to detention-review proceedings. The identified problems included lack of a hearing, restricted access to an investigation file, failure to communicate detention orders or prosecutors’ submissions, non-notification of decisions, and excessive delay in Constitutional Court review. The Court awarded each applicant between €1,000 and €5,000 in non-pecuniary damages and awarded €250 in costs and expenses in four applications.
Key Takeaways
- Pre-trial detention lasting from about nine months to more than six years violated Article 5 § 3 where the supporting reasons were insufficient, repetitive, or otherwise defective.
- Courts reviewing continued detention must address the individual circumstances and consider less restrictive alternatives instead of relying mechanically on the charge, possible sentence, or generalized risks.
- Article 5 § 4 requires an effective and sufficiently prompt opportunity to challenge detention, including procedurally adequate access to relevant hearings, materials, submissions, and decisions.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces the Court’s established position that serious charges and statutory presumptions do not, by themselves, justify prolonged pre-trial detention. Continued detention requires reasons that remain relevant, sufficient, and responsive to the circumstances as proceedings progress.
It also illustrates that detention-review safeguards are independently enforceable: procedural failures in reviewing detention can violate Article 5 § 4 even when the underlying detention is separately assessed under Article 5 § 3.