Background
The 26 applicants were arrested and detained pending trial after the July 2016 attempted coup in Türkiye, on suspicion of membership of FETÖ/PDY. Their detention periods lasted up to eleven months and ten days. Most were later convicted at first instance, while some proceedings remained pending on appeal or before the Constitutional Court.
Domestic courts relied on evidence including witness statements, alleged use of ByLock, links to institutions associated with FETÖ/PDY, financial support, meetings, communications, and stays in alleged FETÖ/PDY houses. But the detention decisions also relied in general terms on the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence, the state of the evidence, risks of flight or interference with evidence, and the asserted inadequacy of alternatives to detention.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously found a violation of Article 5 § 3. Although the domestic courts referred to evidence said to support suspicion, they did not provide sufficient individualized reasons showing why detention remained necessary. Their reasoning was largely abstract and stereotyped, including reliance on the statutory presumption applicable to “catalogue” offences and general references to flight risk, evidence tampering, and the state of the evidence.
The Court stressed that a presumption of detention grounds cannot displace an individualized assessment based on concrete facts. It also held that, because the applicants were detained entirely or predominantly after the state of emergency had ended, Türkiye had not shown that the deficiency could be justified under its Article 15 derogation. Having found an Article 5 § 3 violation, the Court found it unnecessary to decide separately whether there had been reasonable suspicion under Article 5 § 1 (c), or to examine the remaining Article 5 complaints.
Key Takeaways
- Pre-trial detention requires relevant and sufficient, individualized reasons from the first detention order onward.
- General reliance on an offence’s seriousness, statutory detention presumptions, or boilerplate references to flight and evidence risks is insufficient.
- The Court awarded each applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any applicable tax.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces the Court’s established Article 5 § 3 case law in post-coup detention cases from Türkiye: even where authorities identify evidence supporting suspicion, detention must be justified by concrete, person-specific reasons showing why less restrictive measures are inadequate.
It also confirms that the former emergency derogation did not excuse inadequate detention reasoning for applicants detained entirely or predominantly after the state of emergency was lifted.