12531/21;18927/21;24432/21;29031/21;58817/21;32825/22;37642/22;42483/22;16303/23

SECOND SECTION CASE OF ASLAN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 12531/21 and 8 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 November 2025     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Aslan and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Stéphane Pisani, President,  Juha Lavapuro,  Hugh Mercer, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 October 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in applications against Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.  The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention in the absence of relevant and sufficient reasons. In applications nos. 18927/21 and 16303/23 the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long and that the relevant detention orders had lacked relevant and sufficient reasons. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. In addition, the applicant in application no. 12531/21 complained under the same Convention provision that her pre‑trial detention had been ordered in the absence of any grounds. 7.  The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references). 8.  In the leading cases of Cahit Demirel v. Turkey, (no. 18623/03, 7 July 2009), Galip Doğru v. Turkey, (no. 36001/06, 28 April 2015) and Tercan v. Turkey, (no. 6158/18, 29 June 2021), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having considered the Government’s objections, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility (see, for instance, Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 212-14, 22 December 2020; Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 118-21, 3 March 2020; Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no.12778/17, §§ 84-85, 16 April 2019; and Turan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, §§ 57-64, 23 November 2021) and merits of these complaints. 10.  As for the applicant in application no. 12531/24, the Court, in particular, observes that the reasons given by the national courts for placing and keeping her in pre-trial detention entail a formulaic enumeration of the grounds for detention under domestic law in a general and abstract manner. The Court therefore considers that they ordered and extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on grounds that cannot be regarded as “sufficient” to justify the measure in issue (see Tuncer Bakırhan v. Turkey, no. 31417/19, §§ 40-58, 14 September 2021, and Çinici v. Türkiye [Committee], no. 32264/19, § 21, 9 July 2024). 11.  As for the remaining applicants, having regard to its case-law on the subject, as well as to the stereotypical reasonings used by the domestic courts to authorise the continued detention of the applicants, the Court considers that the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive (see, for instance, Cahit Demirel, cited above, § 27). 12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 13.  The applicants in applications nos. 18927/21 and 16303/23 submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, including the objections raised by the Government, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in İshak Sağlam v. Turkey, no. 22963/08, §§ 34-38, 10 July 2018, Ruşen Bayar v. Turkey, no. 25253/08, §§ 91-98, 19 February 2019, Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey, no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012, and Ragıp Zarakolu v. Turkey, no. 15064/12, §§ 57-62, 15 September 2020. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Cahit Demirel, Galip Doğru and Tercan, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention in the absence of relevant and sufficient grounds; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 November 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphane Pisani  Acting Deputy Registrar President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention and/or lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Period of detention Name of the competent court Length of detention Specific defects Grounds for detention Other complaints under well‑established case-law Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2]     12531/21 12/02/2021 Dilan ASLAN Ali Bozan Mersin 16/03/2020 to 27/10/2020 Denizli 2nd and 3rd Assize Courts 7 month(s) and 12 day(s) fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts (Tercan v. Turkey, no. 6158/18, § 183, 29 June 2021) strong suspicion against the applicant, nature of the offence, the fact that the offence was among those listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“catalogue offences”), severity of the potential sentence; risk of absconding, risk of tampering with evidence   250     18927/21 29/03/2021 Mehmet BOZKURT Bahar Oktay Diyarbakır 05/07/2015 to 05/06/2020 Ağrı Assize Court 4 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 1 day(s) fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts (Tercan v. Turkey, no. 6158/18, § 183, 29 June 2021) nature of the offence, strong suspicion against the applicant, severity of the offences, severity of the potential sentence, the fact that the offences were among those listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“catalogue offences”) Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - Start date: 05/07/2015 End date: pending Total length and levels of jurisdiction: more than 10 years, 1 month and 16 days 2 levels of jurisdiction 6,500     24432/21 13/04/2021 Ayşegül ÇAĞATAY GÖKÇE Fatih Gökçe Ankara 25/06/2011 to 31/03/2020 Istanbul 11th and 12th Magistrate’s Courts, Istanbul 29th Assize Court 8 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 7 day(s) fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts (Tercan v. Turkey, no. 6158/18, § 183, 29 June 2021) nature of the offence, the fact that the offence was among those listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“catalogue offences”), minimum and maximum prison sentence prescribed by law, risk of absconding, risk of tampering with evidence   5,000     29031/21 28/05/2021 Sadun KAYA Şehmus Yiğit Aydoğdu Kocaeli 02/07/2018 to 16/09/2022 Kocaeli 1st and 2nd Assize Courts 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 15 day(s) fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed severity of the potential sentences, scope of the case the fact that some pieces of evidence (such as expert reports) had not yet been collected   4,300     58817/21 26/11/2021 Şeyhmus ÇERİ Serhat Dicle İnan Şanlıurfa 17/08/2016 to 10/10/2018 Şanlıurfa Assize Court 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 24 day(s) fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts (Tercan v. Turkey, no. 6158/18, § 183, 29 June 2021) strong suspicion against the applicant, nature of the offence, severity of the potential sentence   2,200     32825/22 27/06/2022 Mensur AKAR Mahmut Kaçan Van 18/04/2016 to 03/01/2019   and   20/12/2019 to 27/10/2022 Hakkari Assize Court 6 years and 6 months and 23 days fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts (Tercan v. Turkey, no. 6158/18, § 183, 29 June 2021) strong suspicion against the applicant, nature of the offences, the fact that the offence was among those listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“catalogue offences”), severity of the offence   5,000     37642/22 01/07/2022 Helin YAPICI Cemile Turhallı Balsak Diyarbakır 23/03/2016 to 06/04/2021 Diyarbakır Assize Court 5 year(s) and 15 day(s) fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts (Tercan v. Turkey, no. 6158/18, § 183, 29 June 2021) strong suspicion against the applicant, nature of the offence, the fact that the offence was among those listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“catalogue offences”), severity of the potential sentence   5,000     42483/22 19/08/2022 İrfan YILDIZ Eyyup Akıncı Istanbul 16/02/2017 to 27/03/2019     25/12/2019 to 25/06/2020 Istanbul 6th Magistrate’s Court,   Istanbul 27th Assize Court 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 12 day(s)   6 month(s) and 1 day(s) fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts, including as the case progressed (Tercan v. Turkey, no. 6158/18, § 183, 29 June 2021) the applicant’s contacts, state of evidence, insufficiency of alternative judicial supervision measures, the fact that the offence was among those listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“catalogue offences”), severity of the potential sentence, the fact that the ISIS organisation resorted to terror acts on New Year’s Eve and special days, the fact that the detention would be more appropriate for the purpose   2,800     16303/23 07/04/2023 Mücahit DOĞAN   31/12/2021 to 27/12/2022 Küçükçekmece Magistrates’ Courts,   Küçükçekmece Criminal Court of First Instance 11 month(s) and 28 day(s) fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts (Tercan v. Turkey, no. 6158/18, § 183, 29 June 2021) strong suspicion against the applicant, nature of the offence, the fact that the offence was among those listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“catalogue offences”), severity of the potential sentence, risk of absconding, risk of tampering with evidence Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention – The applicant was restricted access to the investigation file (Ragıp Zarakolu v. Turkey, no. 15064/12, §§ 57-62, 15 September 2020) 1,500 -     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.