NO REASONABLE DOUBT
chief v. Turkey
B. No. 66448/17, 03/03/2020)
The Court observes that the Constitutional Court referred to the applicant's use of the messaging application ByLock. It should be noted that the relevant evidence was not brought forward until long after the applicant's initial detention. The Constitutional Court did not explain how the evidence obtained several months after the applicant's initial detention could have formed a basis for reasonable suspicion that he had committed the crime of which he was charged. As such, there was a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, as there was no reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a crime at the time of his initial detention.
For precedent decision here click here.
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 verbalize his objections to detention, his claims regarding the content or qualification of the evidence on which he was detained, his statements against the views and evaluations in favor and against, 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.
