SECOND SECTION

CASE OF ÖZOĞLU AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

(Applications nos. 10299/19 and 3 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

16 January 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Özoğlu and Others v. Türkiye,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Davor Derenčinović, President,
 Gediminas Sagatys,
 Stéphane Pisani, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2024,

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 application no. 10299/19, the applicant also raised another complaint under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. 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.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

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, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility (taking also into account the three-month extension introduced by decision of the President of the Court in 2020 as a consequence of the lockdown imposed in France on account of the COVID‑19 pandemic (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022)) and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was unreasonably excessive.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

3. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11.  The applicant in application no. 10299/19 submitted another complaint which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Kavala v. Turkey (no. 28749/18, §§ 185-96, 10 December 2019).

4. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  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,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. 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 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Davor Derenčinović
 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)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.