Background
Six applicants challenged aspects of criminal proceedings brought against them in Türkiye. Four—Aziz Tanrıverdi, Muhittin Tanrıverdi, Murat Tanrıverdi, and Salih Tanrıverdi—complained under Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights that their pre-trial detention was excessively long and had been ordered and extended without relevant and sufficient reasons.
The four applicants were detained during two periods between 2010 and 2016, for total durations ranging from four years, one month, and seven days to four years, one month, and twenty-two days. The appendix identified fragility and repetitiveness in the domestic courts’ reasoning. All six applicants also complained under Article 6 § 1 that the criminal proceedings, which ran from August 2010 until September 2021, lasted excessively long.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously declared the four applicants’ Article 5 § 3 complaints admissible and found a breach. Referring to its established principles and earlier judgments concerning similar issues, it concluded that neither the Government’s objections nor the submitted material justified a different outcome.
The Court rejected the Article 6 § 1 complaints as inadmissible. The Turkish Constitutional Court had already acknowledged the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and awarded adequate compensation, so the six applicants could no longer claim victim status under Articles 34 and 35 § 3(a) of the Convention.
Under Article 41, the Court awarded each of the four successful applicants €5,000 in non-pecuniary damages, plus any applicable tax. It also awarded them €250 jointly for costs and expenses, plus any applicable tax, with default interest if Türkiye failed to pay within three months.
Key Takeaways
- Pre-trial detention lasting slightly more than four years breached Article 5 § 3 in the circumstances examined.
- The Court relied on its established case-law addressing excessive detention and fragile, repetitive judicial reasoning.
- An applicant may lose victim status before the Strasbourg Court when domestic authorities acknowledge a Convention breach and provide adequate redress.
Why It Matters
The judgment reaffirms the Convention requirement that detained defendants be tried within a reasonable time or released pending trial. It also illustrates the Court’s use of well-established case-law to resolve recurring complaints concerning prolonged pre-trial detention.
The decision further shows that effective domestic redress can render a Strasbourg complaint inadmissible: although the criminal proceedings lasted more than eleven years, the Constitutional Court’s finding and compensation prevented the applicants from retaining victim status for that claim.