Here’s a breakdown of the Tüzemen and Others v. Türkiye decision:
1. **Essence:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined multiple applications concerning the arrest and pre-trial detention of individuals in Türkiye following the 2016 coup attempt. These individuals were suspected of being members of the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” (FETÖ/PDY). The Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, holding that there was a lack of reasonable suspicion to justify the initial pre-trial detention of the applicants. The Court emphasized that factors such as using the ByLock messaging system, possessing certain publications, or having accounts with Bank Asya, without further concrete evidence, were insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. The ECHR also noted that the national courts provided vague justifications for the detentions, failing to specify the evidence supporting the suspicion.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment addresses 117 applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* It focuses on complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, specifically the lack of reasonable suspicion for the initial pre-trial detention.
* The Court dismisses the Government’s objections regarding admissibility, referring to similar objections dismissed in previous cases.
* The judgment assesses the evidentiary grounds relied upon by the national courts, such as the use of ByLock, banking activities, possession of publications, and other contacts or affiliations.
* It references previous rulings, such as Akgün v. Turkey and Taner Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 2), to establish that certain acts, like using ByLock or subscribing to lawful publications, do not automatically constitute reasonable suspicion.
* The Court concludes that the general references to Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence in the file were insufficient to justify the “reasonableness” of the suspicion.
* The Court awards EUR 5,000 to each applicant (excluding those in applications nos. 69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and 51815/21) for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must be based on specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence.
* It clarifies that certain circumstantial elements, such as using ByLock, subscribing to publications, or having accounts with specific banks, are not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion without further probative evidence.
* The judgment emphasizes the need for national courts to provide individualized assessments and specific justifications when ordering and extending pre-trial detention, rather than relying on general references to legal provisions or the “evidence in the file.”
* The decision highlights that even in the context of a state of emergency, measures must be strictly required by the exigencies of the situation to comply with Article 5 of the Convention.
**** This decision is related to the arrest and pre-trial detention of individuals in Türkiye following the 2016 coup attempt, which may have implications for Ukrainians who may find themselves in similar situations.
