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. 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.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 5
Outcome: violation