I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in SİSLİGÜN v. TURKEY.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2021-12-14
  • Communication date: 2014-09-22
  • Application number(s): 23897/12
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1-a, 5-1-b, 5-1-c, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 8, 8-1, 8-2, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.751318
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Ümit Sisligün, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul.
He is represented before the Court by Mr M.A.
Kırdök, Mr H.K.
Elban and Ms M. Hanbayat, lawyers practising in Istanbul.
A.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a lawyer by profession.
On 7 April 2010 the applicant visited his client H.A.
who was being detained in the İmralı Prison with a number of other inmates.
Before the applicant conducted his visit, another visit had taken place in a separate room of the same prison to Abdullah Öcalan, who was the leader of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation), by his lawyers.
After that visit had ended, the applicant was admitted to the visiting room with his client H.A.
He did not take any notes as regards the content of his conversation with his client.
Subsequently, he left the prison without making any other visits.
In 2011 an investigation was launched in order to detect and reveal secret communication arrangements within the PKK and the KCK (the Kurdistan Communities Union, an illegal organisation).
As part of that investigation police officers carried out simultaneous operations in 16 cities.
On 21 November 2011 a judge from the committee of three judges of the Istanbul 11th Assize Court issued the following order in respect of the applicant: “(...) as any delays would be detrimental, it is decided to arrest the above-mentioned member of the organisation, in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Turkish Constitution and Articles 117, 119, 127 and 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to conduct a body search of him and of the persons accompanying him when he is arrested, to conduct a search during the day (and during the night if it is necessary under Article 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) at the addresses mentioned above and their annexes, and to conduct a body search of the persons who are present at the addresses and, if any, in the cars he drives.” On 22 November 2011 at around 7.00 a.m. the police arrested the applicant at his home.
He was taken into detention at the Istanbul Police Department’s Anti-Terror Branch.
The applicant was informed about the offence of which he stood accused, but was not informed of the reasons of his arrest until 25 November 2011.
The investigation was classified as “confidential” by court order, which meant that the applicant’s lawyers were unable to examine the case file.
Following his arrest the police searched the applicant’s flat which he shared with five other flatmates.
The police copied the data in the computer jointly used by the applicant and his flatmates.
A copy of the search report was not given to the applicant on account of the confidentiality order concerning the investigation.
On the same day, the police executed the search warrant at the applicant’s office, which he shared with three other lawyers.
At the end of the search the police made and took away with them a copy of the entire data in the computer hard disk that was jointly used by all the lawyers in the office.
The portable hard disk which belonged to M.H., one of the lawyers practising in the office, was copied and seized by the police.
The search and seizure report was signed by those present, including M.H.
However, she also added her reservations in the report, and objected to the copying of the computer disk which was jointly used by all lawyers in the office.
She also added that the portable drive seized belonged to her and that the search warrant should have been issued by the committee of three judges of the Assize Court and not only by one of its number.
On 23 November 2011 the applicant’s lawyers applied to the Assize Court for the court order of 21 November 2011 to be annulled, and asked for the applicant to be released.
They maintained that the reason for the applicant’s arrest had been unknown to them until they saw the news on television about the arrests which had taken place in connection with the visits to Abdullah Öcalan by his lawyers in İmralı Prison.
They argued that the applicant had not conducted such a visit; he had only visited his client at the prison, and there had been no reason to arrest and investigate him for conducting his professional activity.
They further maintained that the confidentiality order had precluded them from accessing the investigation file and from objecting to the arrest.
They complained that the principle of the equality of arms had not been respected.
They also objected to the search warrant and argued that it had been issued by a single judge acting on behalf of the Assize Court and was thus contrary to Article 58 of the Attorney’s Act, that the subject matter of the search had not been specified in the search warrant and that as a result the police had been given a very wide discretion, and finally that the data belonging to the other lawyers had also been seized during the search of the office.
The applicant did not receive any answer from the Assize Court in respect of this application.
On 25 November 2011 the applicant was interrogated at the Istanbul Prosecution Office where he was informed of the accusations against him.
He stated that he had visited his client H.A.
in İmralı Prison on the same day the lawyers of Abdullah Öcalan were visiting the latter; however, he did not have any representative relationship with Abdullah Öcalan.
He argued that he must have been arrested by mistake.
The applicant’s lawyer also maintained that the search warrant was unlawful as it had been issued by a single judge of the Assize Court.
On 26 November 2011 the applicant was brought before the Istanbul 11th Assize Court.
He maintained that he had not visited Abdullah Öcalan and that he had no connections with any illegal organisation.
The Istanbul 11th Assize Court ordered the release of the applicant on the ground of insufficient evidence against him.
He was released at midday.
On 3 April 2012 the İstanbul Public Prosecution Office submitted a bill of indictment to the Assize Court, accusing the applicant of communicating information between the illegal organisations PKK and the KCK by visiting Abdullah Öcalan on 7 April 2010, and of aiding the communication network within the organisations.
The criminal proceedings brought against the applicant before the İstanbul Assize Court are still pending before that court.
B.
Relevant domestic law Relevant parts of the Attorney’s Act “Section 58: Investigations into activities of lawyers for offences connected with their duties as lawyers, or with their duties within the Union of Turkish Bar Associations and within the organs of the local Bars, shall be carried out by the local prosecutor and after permission has been sought from the Ministry of Justice.
Offices and homes of lawyers may only be searched with a decision of a court and under the supervision of the prosecutor and a representative of the Bar Association.
No body searches may be carried out on a lawyer except for in flagrante delicto cases and for offences falling within the jurisdiction of Assize Courts.” Relevant parts of the Code of Criminal Procedure “Section 130: (1) Attorneys’ offices shall only be searched with a court decision and in connection with the incident that is indicated in the decision and under the supervision of the public prosecutor.
The President of the Bar Association or an attorney representing him or her shall be present at the time of search.
(2) If the attorney whose office is searched, or the President of Bar Association or an attorney representing him, objects to the search by alleging that the items to be seized at the end of the search relate to the professional relationship between the attorney and his clients, then those items shall be put in a separate envelope or a package and sealed by the participants.
In the investigation phase the Magistrates’ Court, and in the trial phase the judge or the trial court may be requested to deal with the matter.
If the judge establishes that the seized items concern the professional relationship between the attorney and his or her client, then those items shall be immediately returned to the attorney and the record concerning the seizure shall be destroyed.
The decisions mentioned in this subparagraph shall be issued within 24 hours.” COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he was arrested in the absence of a reasonable suspicion of having committed the offence of which he stood accused.
He maintains that he did not have any connection with the incidents which occurred in İmralı Prison, and submits that the fact that he visited his own client on the same day of the incidents cannot constitute a reasonable suspicion.
The applicant also complains under the same Article that his arrest was arbitrary and unlawful because the rules for investigating lawyers in relation to their professional conduct were not respected.
He argues, in particular, that the prior approval of the Ministry of Justice was not obtained.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that he was not promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive duration of his detention of 4 days and 5 hours.
He complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that his application before the Istanbul Assize Court against his arrest was not taken into consideration by the court.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the search carried out in his home and law firm were unlawful.
In particular the search warrant was issued by only one judge of the Assize Court and not by the committee of three judges, contrary to the provisions of the Attorneys’ Act.
Moreover, the search warrant did not specify the subject matter of the search and, as a result, all his belongings, including his confidential legal documents, were searched.
The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy at his disposal for his complaint concerning Article 8 of the Convention, as his application against the search order was not reviewed by the domestic courts.

Judgment

SECOND SECTION
CASE OF SİSLİGÜN v. TURKEY
(Application no.
23897/12)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 December 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sisligün v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President, Branko Lubarda, Pauliine Koskelo, judges,and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no.
23897/12) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 23 February 2012 by a Turkish national, Mr Ümit Sisligün, born in 1973 and living in Istanbul (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr H.K. Elban, a lawyer practising in Antalya;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 2, 3 and 4 and Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their co-Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Turkey, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1.
The applicant is a lawyer at the Istanbul Bar. The application mainly concerns the applicant’s arrest, and the search of his home and office, allegedly in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence. 2. On 7 April 2010 the applicant visited his client H.A. detained at İmralı Prison, where four other convicts were serving their sentences, including Abdullah Öcalan, the former leader of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). 3. In 2011, the Istanbul Public Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation in order to uncover the secret channels of communication between Abdullah Öcalan and the PKK/KCK, in particular those allegedly secured by lawyers. 4. On 22 November 2011 the applicant was taken into police custody at his home. On the same date, searches were conducted at his home and at the office that he shared with three other lawyers, based on a court order issued the previous day. 5. On 23 November 2011 the applicant’s lawyers lodged an objection against his arrest and detention. They argued, inter alia, that there was no reasonable suspicion for the applicant’s arrest. They also contested the validity and the allegedly wide scope of the search order. 6. On 25 November 2011 the applicant was questioned by the Istanbul public prosecutor, where he was accused of membership of the PKK/KCK on account of having met with Abdullah Öcalan at İmralı Prison and of transmitting his instructions to the illegal organisation. Denying these allegations, the applicant explained that he had visited İmralı Prison only once on 7 April 2011 for the sole purpose of meeting his client H.A., who was convicted of membership of another illegal armed organisation. Before the public prosecutor, the applicant’s lawyers stressed that the meetings conducted at İmralı Prison were strictly supervised and recorded and that, therefore, the accuracy of the applicant’s statements could be verified from the relevant records. 7. Later on the same date, the applicant was brought before the Istanbul Assize Court for questioning, where he repeated his earlier statements. 8. On 26 November 2011 the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the applicant’s release on the grounds of lack of sufficient evidence against him. 9. On 3 April 2012 the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with some fifty individuals most of whom were lawyers, accusing him of membership of the PKK/KCK. According to the indictment, the technical surveillance conducted during the course of the investigation had revealed that on 7 April 2010 four lawyers, including the applicant, had met with Abdullah Öcalan at İmralı Prison, where they transmitted information to the latter regarding the organisation. Furthermore, these lawyers had prepared “meeting notes” following the meeting where they compiled, inter alia, the instructions of Abdullah Öcalan, which they then disseminated via e-mail to the high-ranking members of the organisation. The public prosecutor thereby accused the lawyers of having acted as couriers for the terrorist organisation. 10. According to the latest information in the case file, the criminal proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
11.
As regards the Government’s plea on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court notes that the Government have not produced any judicial decisions to demonstrate that the compensation remedy under Article 141 of the CCP could provide an effective remedy for challenging the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed an offence, in particular where the criminal proceedings were still pending (see, mutatis mutandis, Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey, no. 13252/17, § 190, 13 April 2021). The Government’s objection must therefore be dismissed. 12. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other ground. It must therefore be declared admissible. 13. The general principles concerning the requirement of “reasonable suspicion” under Article 5 § 1 (c) have been summarised in Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) ([GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 311-321, 22 December 2020). 14. The applicant submitted that there had been no information available at the time of his arrest that could satisfy an objective observer that he had acted as a messenger between Abdullah Öcalan and the PKK as accused. He stressed that all meetings with Abdullah Öcalan were recorded by the prison administration and any notes taken by the lawyers during the meetings were reviewed afterwards. 15. The Government stated that as part of the investigation launched in his respect, the applicant had been subjected to a technical surveillance, which revealed that he had facilitated the PKK’s communication with Abdullah Öcalan through the notes that he had taken during his visit to İmralı Prison, and that this evidence had been clearly indicated in the indictment. There had therefore been a reasonable suspicion for his detention in police custody. 16. The Court notes from the Government’s observations that the “reasonable suspicion” held against the applicant was based on some surveillance data suggesting his involvement in the transmission of information to and from Abdullah Öcalan. However, the Government provide no information as to when the said data had been obtained; they only indicate that the relevant information had been included in the indictment, without arguing that it had been available to the authorities already at the time of the applicant’s arrest. In these circumstances, and based on the information available to it, the Court cannot but infer that the data in question had been obtained at later stages of the investigation and that there was no evidence at the time of the applicant’s arrest to suggest that the applicant’s visit to İmralı Prison on 7 April 2010 had involved anything more than an authorised meeting with his client H.A. The applicant’s argument regarding the lack of any reasonable suspicion against him to justify his detention in police custody remains, therefore, unrefuted (see, mutatis mutandis, İşçi and Others v. Turkey, no. 67483/12, § 45, 20 October 2020, and Alpergin and Others v. Turkey, no. 62018/12, § 49, 27 October 2020). 17. The Court reiterates that although the subsequent gathering of evidence in relation to a particular charge may sometimes reinforce a suspicion linking an applicant to the commission of terrorism-related offences, it cannot form the sole basis of a suspicion justifying his or her initial detention (see, to similar effect, Fox, Campbell and Hartley, cited above, § 35). In particular, the subsequent gathering of such evidence does not release the national authorities from their obligation to provide a sufficient factual basis that could justify a person’s initial detention (see Selahattin Demirtaş, cited above, § 321 and Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, § 139, 16 April 2019). 18. In the absence of any information by the Government capable of satisfying it that the applicant was reasonably suspected of having committed the alleged offence at the time of his arrest, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. 19. As regards the remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention, the Court has examined them and considers, in the light of all the material in its possession and its case-law, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, that these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto (see, for instance, Paşa Bayraktar and Aydınkaya v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38337/12, §§ 24-31, 16 May 2017; Mustafa Avcı v. Turkey, no. 39322/12, §§ 58-67, 23 May 2017, and Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, no. 13237/17, §§ 98-102, 20 March 2018). 20. It follows that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 21. The applicant also complained under Article 8 that his home and law office had been unlawfully searched on the basis of a broad search warrant issued by a single judge despite the absence of any reasonable suspicion against him and under Article 13 that there had been no effective remedies in respect of his Article 8 complaints. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 5 § (1) (c), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicant’s remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
22.
The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‐pecuniary damage and EUR 4,318.13 in respect of legal costs incurred before the Court. 23. The Government contested the applicant’s claims as being excessive. 24. The Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. 25. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 2,000 covering costs incurred before it, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. 26. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 14 December 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Aleš Pejchal Deputy Registrar President

SECOND SECTION
CASE OF SİSLİGÜN v. TURKEY
(Application no.
23897/12)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 December 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sisligün v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President, Branko Lubarda, Pauliine Koskelo, judges,and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no.
23897/12) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 23 February 2012 by a Turkish national, Mr Ümit Sisligün, born in 1973 and living in Istanbul (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr H.K. Elban, a lawyer practising in Antalya;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 2, 3 and 4 and Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their co-Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Turkey, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1.
The applicant is a lawyer at the Istanbul Bar. The application mainly concerns the applicant’s arrest, and the search of his home and office, allegedly in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence. 2. On 7 April 2010 the applicant visited his client H.A. detained at İmralı Prison, where four other convicts were serving their sentences, including Abdullah Öcalan, the former leader of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). 3. In 2011, the Istanbul Public Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation in order to uncover the secret channels of communication between Abdullah Öcalan and the PKK/KCK, in particular those allegedly secured by lawyers. 4. On 22 November 2011 the applicant was taken into police custody at his home. On the same date, searches were conducted at his home and at the office that he shared with three other lawyers, based on a court order issued the previous day. 5. On 23 November 2011 the applicant’s lawyers lodged an objection against his arrest and detention. They argued, inter alia, that there was no reasonable suspicion for the applicant’s arrest. They also contested the validity and the allegedly wide scope of the search order. 6. On 25 November 2011 the applicant was questioned by the Istanbul public prosecutor, where he was accused of membership of the PKK/KCK on account of having met with Abdullah Öcalan at İmralı Prison and of transmitting his instructions to the illegal organisation. Denying these allegations, the applicant explained that he had visited İmralı Prison only once on 7 April 2011 for the sole purpose of meeting his client H.A., who was convicted of membership of another illegal armed organisation. Before the public prosecutor, the applicant’s lawyers stressed that the meetings conducted at İmralı Prison were strictly supervised and recorded and that, therefore, the accuracy of the applicant’s statements could be verified from the relevant records. 7. Later on the same date, the applicant was brought before the Istanbul Assize Court for questioning, where he repeated his earlier statements. 8. On 26 November 2011 the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the applicant’s release on the grounds of lack of sufficient evidence against him. 9. On 3 April 2012 the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with some fifty individuals most of whom were lawyers, accusing him of membership of the PKK/KCK. According to the indictment, the technical surveillance conducted during the course of the investigation had revealed that on 7 April 2010 four lawyers, including the applicant, had met with Abdullah Öcalan at İmralı Prison, where they transmitted information to the latter regarding the organisation. Furthermore, these lawyers had prepared “meeting notes” following the meeting where they compiled, inter alia, the instructions of Abdullah Öcalan, which they then disseminated via e-mail to the high-ranking members of the organisation. The public prosecutor thereby accused the lawyers of having acted as couriers for the terrorist organisation. 10. According to the latest information in the case file, the criminal proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
11.
As regards the Government’s plea on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court notes that the Government have not produced any judicial decisions to demonstrate that the compensation remedy under Article 141 of the CCP could provide an effective remedy for challenging the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed an offence, in particular where the criminal proceedings were still pending (see, mutatis mutandis, Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey, no. 13252/17, § 190, 13 April 2021). The Government’s objection must therefore be dismissed. 12. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other ground. It must therefore be declared admissible. 13. The general principles concerning the requirement of “reasonable suspicion” under Article 5 § 1 (c) have been summarised in Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) ([GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 311-321, 22 December 2020). 14. The applicant submitted that there had been no information available at the time of his arrest that could satisfy an objective observer that he had acted as a messenger between Abdullah Öcalan and the PKK as accused. He stressed that all meetings with Abdullah Öcalan were recorded by the prison administration and any notes taken by the lawyers during the meetings were reviewed afterwards. 15. The Government stated that as part of the investigation launched in his respect, the applicant had been subjected to a technical surveillance, which revealed that he had facilitated the PKK’s communication with Abdullah Öcalan through the notes that he had taken during his visit to İmralı Prison, and that this evidence had been clearly indicated in the indictment. There had therefore been a reasonable suspicion for his detention in police custody. 16. The Court notes from the Government’s observations that the “reasonable suspicion” held against the applicant was based on some surveillance data suggesting his involvement in the transmission of information to and from Abdullah Öcalan. However, the Government provide no information as to when the said data had been obtained; they only indicate that the relevant information had been included in the indictment, without arguing that it had been available to the authorities already at the time of the applicant’s arrest. In these circumstances, and based on the information available to it, the Court cannot but infer that the data in question had been obtained at later stages of the investigation and that there was no evidence at the time of the applicant’s arrest to suggest that the applicant’s visit to İmralı Prison on 7 April 2010 had involved anything more than an authorised meeting with his client H.A. The applicant’s argument regarding the lack of any reasonable suspicion against him to justify his detention in police custody remains, therefore, unrefuted (see, mutatis mutandis, İşçi and Others v. Turkey, no. 67483/12, § 45, 20 October 2020, and Alpergin and Others v. Turkey, no. 62018/12, § 49, 27 October 2020). 17. The Court reiterates that although the subsequent gathering of evidence in relation to a particular charge may sometimes reinforce a suspicion linking an applicant to the commission of terrorism-related offences, it cannot form the sole basis of a suspicion justifying his or her initial detention (see, to similar effect, Fox, Campbell and Hartley, cited above, § 35). In particular, the subsequent gathering of such evidence does not release the national authorities from their obligation to provide a sufficient factual basis that could justify a person’s initial detention (see Selahattin Demirtaş, cited above, § 321 and Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, § 139, 16 April 2019). 18. In the absence of any information by the Government capable of satisfying it that the applicant was reasonably suspected of having committed the alleged offence at the time of his arrest, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. 19. As regards the remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention, the Court has examined them and considers, in the light of all the material in its possession and its case-law, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, that these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto (see, for instance, Paşa Bayraktar and Aydınkaya v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38337/12, §§ 24-31, 16 May 2017; Mustafa Avcı v. Turkey, no. 39322/12, §§ 58-67, 23 May 2017, and Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, no. 13237/17, §§ 98-102, 20 March 2018). 20. It follows that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 21. The applicant also complained under Article 8 that his home and law office had been unlawfully searched on the basis of a broad search warrant issued by a single judge despite the absence of any reasonable suspicion against him and under Article 13 that there had been no effective remedies in respect of his Article 8 complaints. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 5 § (1) (c), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicant’s remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
22.
The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‐pecuniary damage and EUR 4,318.13 in respect of legal costs incurred before the Court. 23. The Government contested the applicant’s claims as being excessive. 24. The Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. 25. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 2,000 covering costs incurred before it, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. 26. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 14 December 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Aleš Pejchal Deputy Registrar President