NOT HEALING DURING THE INVESTIGATION
APPLICATION OF ULAŞ KAYA AND ADNAN ATAMAN
(Application Number: 2013/4128)
The fact that the applicants were detained without a hearing for more than three months within the scope of the alleged crimes and they were deprived of their liberty according to a procedure that continued for more than three months was incompatible with the principles of "equality of arms" and "contested trial".
For precedent decision here click.
.jpg)
chief v. Turkey, B. No. 66448/17, 03/03/2020
For example, in a situation requiring interference with a fundamental Covenant right, such as the right to liberty, and in view of the possible adverse effects of detention without charge (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 186); It has been considered that the applicant's failure to appear before the court that ruled on his detention for such a long period of time undermines the very essence of the right in Article 5/4 of the Convention and that the absence of a hearing cannot be said to be absolutely necessary for the protection of public safety, even in the situation described above. The ECtHR cannot therefore accept the conclusion reached by the Constitutional Court in examining the applicant's complaint (§ 230).
The ECtHR therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5/4 due to the length of time the applicant had not personally appeared before a judge (§ 231).
For precedent decision here click here.
.jpg)
ERDAL TERCAN APPLICATION
(Application Number: 2016/15637)
The detention status of the applicant was continued with the decisions made as a result of the examinations made on the file without holding a hearing as of the date of 20/7/2016, when it was decided to be arrested. In this process, it was not possible for the applicant to verbally express his objections to detention, his claims regarding the content or qualification of the evidence on which he was detained, his statements against the opinions and evaluations in favor and against him, and his requests for release before the judge/court. Therefore, the examination of the applicant's detention without a hearing for approximately twenty-one months is incompatible with the principles of "equality of arms" and "contested trial" in the ordinary period (For the same evaluation, see Aydın Yavuz et al., § 341) (§231).
For precedent decision here click here
Erişen et al. v. Turkey, App. no. 7067/06, 3/4/2012
It considered the rejection of the suspect's objections regarding the detention without being heard within a period of 2 months and 13 days as a violation of Article 5 § (4) of the Convention (§§ 51-54).
For precedent decision here click.
