SECOND SECTION
Application no. 26357/11
by Figen ÇAĞRI
against Turkey
lodged on 26 January 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Figen Çağrı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Kocaeli. She is represented before the Court by Mr E. Kanar, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 October 2004 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody on suspicion of involvement in an illegal organisation.
On 5 October 2004 the applicant was detained pending trial by the Ankara Assize Court (2004/91 E.).
On 3 November 2004 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul Assize Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and four others, charging them with aiding and abetting an illegal organisation under Article 169 of the former Criminal Code. In the indictment, the prosecutor requested that the proceedings be joined to a case which was already pending before the Istanbul Assize Court due to the factual and legal links between them.
On 9 May 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to join the proceedings with the other case pending before it (1999/328 E.).
On an unknown date in 2005, the public prosecutor at the Ankara Assize Court issued a bill of indictment against the applicant accusing her of attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the State under Article 146 §1 of the former Criminal Code.
On 17 August 2006 the applicant was brought before the Istanbul Assize Court to make her defence submissions. Nevertheless, the trial court postponed her questioning to a future date, observing that the applicant was not legally represented. The court subsequently ordered a lawyer to be assigned to her under a legal aid scheme.
On 16 November 2006 the Istanbul Assize Court decided that the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be joined to the case before the Ankara Assize Court. However, on 7 December 2006 the Ankara Assize Court rejected that decision.
In view of the disagreement between the Istanbul and Ankara Assize Courts, the case was sent to the Court of Cassation in order for the competent court to be determined.
On 15 February 2007 the Court of Cassation held that the proceedings should be transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court (1999/328 E.).
During the proceedings, the Istanbul Assize Court rejected several requests by the applicant to be released pending trial.
On 1 December 2010 the applicant filed an objection against the Istanbul Assize Court’s decision of 25 November 2010 extending her pre-trial detention.
On 14 December 2010 the 14th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court reviewed the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention on the basis of the documents in the case file. Subsequently, the court rejected the applicant’s objection, having regard to the seriousness of the criminal charges and existence of a reasonable suspicion against her.
On 21 June 2011 the Istanbul Assize Court again ordered that the applicant’s pre-trial detention be continued, on the basis of the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence, the risk of the applicant absconding, the overall period she had spent in pre-trial detention and the content of the case file.
According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are still pending and the applicant is currently detained pending trial.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 5 § 3, 6 § 2 and 14 of the Convention that she has been detained pending trial for an excessive period of time, which contravenes her right to be presumed innocent. In this regard, the applicant also alleges that the domestic courts have been extending her detention by relying on the same stereotypical reasons and without examining her personal situation effectively.
Relying on Articles 5 § 4, 6 §§ 1 and 3 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that she was denied a fair and adversarial hearing in the review of the lawfulness of her continued detention, as the domestic court conducted its review on the basis of the written documents in the case file. In this connection, she argues that there was no effective remedy provided in the domestic system whereby she could challenge the decision to extend her pre-trial detention.
Finally, the applicant complains under 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against her have exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Has the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

2.  Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the absence of an oral hearing and the applicant’s inability to be represented in the proceedings before the 14th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

3.  Has the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?