CASE OF SELAHATTİN DEMİRTAŞ v. TURKEY (No. 2)
Hearing: Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 14305/17) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-09-18 00:00:00)
Application no.: 14305/17
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2018-11-20 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1120JUD001430517
Respondent state: TUR
Articles of the Convention: 5;5-1;5-1-c;5-3;5-4;18;18+5-3;34;35;35-1;35-2-b;35-3-a;41;46;46-2;P1-3
Judges: Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano
Represented by: KARAMAN M.
Issue: Articles 100 § 3 and 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) ; Article 18 of the Constitution
Strasbourg case-law cited: Agit Demir v. Turkey, no 36475/10, § 39, 27 February 2018;Ali Rıza Kaplan v. Turkey, no 24597/08, §§ 19-23, 13 November 2014;Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 27021/08, § 99, ECHR 2011;Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no 71503/01, ECHR 2004 II;Azzolina and Others v. Italy, nos. 28923/09 and 67599/10, § 105, 26 October 2017;Balbay v. Turkey, (dec.), nos. 666/11 and 73745/11, § 69, 3 March 2015;Baranowski v. Poland, no 28358/95, § 52, ECHR 2000 III;Baumann v. France, no 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001 V (extracts);Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no 23755/07, ECHR 2016 (extracts);Cahit Demirel v. Turkey, no 18623/03, §§ 21 28, 7 July 2009;Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 42, Series A no 236;Ceviz v. Turkey, no 8140/08, §§ 41 44, 17 July 2012;Çiçek v. Turkey (dec.), no 72774/10, § 62, 3 March 2015;Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, § 44, Series A no 225;Contrada v. Italy, 24 August 1998, §§ 58 65, Reports 1998-V;Cordova v. Italy (no 1), no 40877/98, § 59, ECHR 2003-I;Creangă v. Romania [GC], no 29226/03, § 101, 23 February 2012;D.N. v. Switzerland [GC], no 27154/95, § 41, ECHR 2001 III;Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no 42750/09, ECHR 2013;Ersöz v. Turkey (dec.), no 45746/11, § 50, 17 February 2015;Etxeberria and Others v. Spain, nos. 35579/03 and 3 others, § 48, 30 June 2009;Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no 40984/07, § 172, 22 April 2010;Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 32, Series A no 182;Galip Doğru v. Turkey, no 36001/06, § 58, 28 April 2015;Gavril Yosifov v. Bulgaria, no 74012/01, § 40, 6 November 2008;Grosaru v. Romania, no 78039/01, § 47, ECHR 2010;Giorgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia, no 37048/04, §§ 73 and 76, 13 January 2009;Gürdeniz v. Turkey, (dec.), no 59715/10, § 37, 18 March 2014;İbrahim Güler v. Turkey, no 1942/08, §§ 19-27, 15 October 2013;Idalov v. Russia [GC], no 5826/03, § 145, 22 May 2012;Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII;Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no 15172/13, § 90, 22 May 2014;Ilıcak v. Turkey, no 15394/02, § 30, 5 April 2007;Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no 33977/96, 26 July 2001;Jėčius v. Lithuania, no 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000 IX;Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 141, 17 May 2016;Karoussiotis v. Portugal, no 23205/08, § 57, ECHR 2011 (extracts);Kavakçı v. Turkey, no 71907/01, §§ 40-41, 5 April 2007;Koçintar v. Turkey (dec.), no 77429/12, §§ 30-46, 1 July 2014;Kolomenskiy v. Russia, no 27297/07, § 88, 13 December 2016;Korenjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no 463/03, § 73, 15 May 2007;Korkmaz and Others v. Turkey, no 35979/97, §§ 24-26, 21 March 2006;Kučera v. Slovakia, no 48666/99, § 94, 17 July 2007;Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000 IV;Lamy v. Belgium, 30 March 1989, § 29, Series A no 151;Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, Series A no 207;Lietzow v. Germany, no 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001 I;Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, §§ 41 and 42, Series A no 103;Lukanov v. Bulgaria, no 21915/93, decision of the Commission of 12 January 1995, Decisions and Reports (DR) 80-B, p. 108;Luković v. Serbia, no 43808/07, § 54, 26 March 2013;Lykourezos v. Greece, no 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII;M. v. Germany, no 19359/04, § 90, ECHR 2009;Maestri v. Italy [GC], no 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004 I;Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, Series A no 113;McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], nº 543/03, § 44, ECHR 2006 X;Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no 237 A;Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, no 13237/17, 20 March 2018;Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no 72508/13, § 222, 28 November 2017;Mergen and Others v. Turkey, nos. 44062/09 and 4 others, § 48, 31 May 2016;Metin v. Turkey (dec.), no 77479/11, § 57, 3 March 2015;Mooren v. Germany [GC], no 11364/03, 9 July 2009;Murray v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1994, Series A no 300 A;Mustafa Avci v. Turkey, no 39322/12, 23 May 2017;Năstase v. Romania (dec.), no 80563/12, § 109, 18 November 2014;Nedim Şener v. Turkey, no 38270/11, § 70, 8 July 2014;Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, p. 37, §§ 4-5, Series A no 8;Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999 II;O’Hara v. the United Kingdom, no 37555/97, § 34, ECHR 2001 X;Oshurko v. Ukraine, no 33108/05, § 98, 8 September 2011;Ovsjannikov v. Estonia, no 1346/12, §§ 72-78, 20 February 2014;Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no 34932/04, § 97, ECHR 2011 (extracts);Peraldi v. France (dec.), no 2096/05, 7 April 2009;Podkolzina v. Latvia, no 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II;Poyraz v. Turkey (dec.), no 21235/11, § 53, 17 February 2015;Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no 69981/14, § 170, 17 March 2016;Reinprecht v. Austria, no 67175/01, § 39, ECHR 2005 XII;Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 48555/10 and 48377/10, § 141, 13 October 2015;Roseiro Bento v. Portugal (dec.), no 29288/02, ECHR 2004-XII (extracts);Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no 2), nos. 25144/94 and 8 others, §§ 31- 33, ECHR 2002 IV;Şahin Alpay v. Turkey, no 16538/17, 20 March 2018;Schöps v. Germany, no 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I;Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000 VIII;Şık v. Turkey, no 53413/11, § 62, 8 July 2014;Sılay v. Turkey, no 8691/02, § 27, 5 April 2007;Smatana v. the Czech Republic, no 18642/04, §§ 119-124, 27 September 2007;Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 60-63, ECHR 2003 IX (extracts);Sobacı v. Turkey, no 26733/02, § 27, 29 November 2007;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no 36760/06, § 143, ECHR 2012;Stanka Mirković and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 33781/15 and 3 others, § 48, 7 March 2017;Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, p. 40, § 4, Series A nº 9;Süleyman Erdem v. Turkey, no 49574/99, § 37, 19 September 2006;Tănase v. Moldova [GC], no 7/08, § 154, ECHR 2010;Uspaskich v. Lithuania, no 14737/08, 20 December 2016;Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no 2) [GC], no 32772/02, § 85, ECHR 2009;Voisine v. France, no 27362/95, decision of the Commission of 14 January 1998;W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 33, Series A no 254 A;Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 40, Series A no 114;Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, p. 25, §§12-15, Series A no 7;Whiteside v. Royaume Uni, no 20357/92, decision of the Commission of 7 March 1994;Włoch v. Poland, no 27785/95, § 108, ECHR 2000 XI;Yüksel and Others v. Turkey, nos. 55835/09 and 2 others, § 52, 31 May 2016;Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no 58278/00, § 115, ECHR 2006 IV;Žúbor v. Slovakia, no 7711/06, §§ 71 77, 6 December 2011
External sources: Memorandum by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights following his visits to Turkey in 2016;Opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on the suspension of the second paragraph of Article 83 of the Constitution;Opinion on the amendments to the Constitution adopted by the Grand National Assembly on 21 January 2017 and submitted to a national referendum on 16 April 2017, adopted by the Venice Commission;Amnesty International Report 2017/2018: The state of the world’s human rights
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-2-b) Matter already submitted to another international procedure;Preliminary objection allowed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Free expression of the opinion of the people;Stand for election);Violation of Article 18+5-3 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE