SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 35

An Evaluation of the Right to Access to Lawyer in Police Custody in the Light of the ECtHR’s Decision of İbrahim and Others v UK

POLİS KARAKOLUNDA MÜDAFİ İLE GÖRÜŞME VE MÜDAFİDEN YARARLANMA HAKKININ AİHM’NİN İBRAHİM VE DİĞERLERİ/ BİRLEŞİK KRALLIK KARARI IŞIĞINDA DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Ergül Çeliksoy(Doktora Öğrencisi, Nottingham Üniversitesi, İngiltere.)
Pages
665–687
Publication Date
2018-07-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The purpose of this paper is to discuss to what extents Turkey is in accordance with the standards on the right to access to lawyer in police custody prescribed by the ECtHR

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In Ibrahim and Others v UK, the European Court of Human Rights the ECtHR has clarified the principles on the right to access to lawyer in police custody set up in Salduz v Turkey and the subsequent case-law.
📊
Key Findings & Data:With the creation of new Criminal Procedure Law in 2005 and the 2014 amendment in the Anti-Terror Law, Turkey has taken important steps in the recognition of the right to access to lawyer in police custody.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The purpose of this paper is to discuss to what extents Turkey is in accordance with the standards on the right to access to lawyer in police custody prescribed by the ECtHR
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Müdafi ile görüşme hakkı · müdafiden yararlanma hakkı · ifade

Abstract

In Ibrahim and Others v UK, the European Court of Human Rights the ECtHR has clarified the principles on the right to access to lawyer in police custody set up in Salduz v Turkey and the subsequent case-law. In Ibrahim and Others v UK, the ECtHR stated that the Salduz principles require a two-stage test of assessment. In addition, it made a clarification of the meaning of compelling reasons which had been unclear for a long. With the creation of new Criminal Procedure Law in 2005 and the 2014 amendment in the Anti-Terror Law, Turkey has taken important steps in the recognition of the right to access to lawyer in police custody. Even though Turkey seems to be in compliance with the ECtHR in the recognition of the right, there are some deficiencies in the law concerning the restriction procedure of the access to lawyer. The purpose of this paper is to discuss to what extents Turkey is in accordance with the standards on the right to access to lawyer in police custody prescribed by the ECtHR

Özet

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi AİHM veya Mahkeme , İbrahim ve Diğerleri/Birleşik Krallık kararında, polis karakolunda müdafi ile görüşme ve müdafi yardımından faydalanma hakkına dair Salduz/Türkiye ve devam eden davalarda belirlemiş olduğu prensiplerine önemli açıklamalar Salduz prensiplerinin iki aşamalı bir değerlendirme gerektirdiğini ifade etmiştir. Ayrıca, uzun bir süredir belirsiz olan hakkın sınırlandırılabilmesi için gerekli olan zorunlu sebeplerin neler olduğunu açıklamıştır. Türkiye, Ceza Muhakemesi Kanununun kabulü ve 2014 yılında Terörle Mücadele Kanunu’nda yapılan değişiklikle birlikte polis karakolunda müdafi ile görüşme ve müdafi yardımından faydalanma hakkında önemli gelişmeler göstermiştir. Bu makalede, Türkiye’nin polis karakolunda müdafi ile görüşme ve müdafi yardımından faydalanma hakkı bakımından AİHM ile ne ölçüde uyumlu olduğu değerlendirilecektir

🔖

Cite This Article

Çeliksoy, E. (2018). An Evaluation of the Right to Access to Lawyer in Police Custody in the Light of the ECtHR’s Decision of İbrahim and Others v UK. Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, Sayı: 35, 665–687. https://ajindex.com/articles/185917

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. ALTIPARMAK, Kerem, ‘İHOP AIHM Kararlarının Uygulanması İzleme Raporları, 2013/6 Salduz/Türkiye Kararının Uygulanması- İzleme Raporu’, İnternet Erişim Adresi: erişim tarihi 30/12/2017
  2. BERGER, Mark, ‘Self-Incrimination and the European Court of Human Rights: Procedural Issues in the Enforcement of the Right to Silence’, European Human Rights Law Review, Vol.5, 2007, pp.514-533
  3. BLACKSTOCK, Jodie et al., Inside Police Custody: An Empirical Account of Suspects’ Rightsin Four Jurisdictions (Cambridge: Intersentia 2014)
  4. ÇELİKSOY, Ergül, ‘Ibrahim and Others v. UK: Watering Down the Salduz Principles’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 2018, Vol.9(2), pp.229-246
  5. COPE, Ed et al, ‘Chapter 2 The European Convention on Human Rights and the Right toEffective Defence’ in CAPE, Ed et al (eds), Effective Criminal Defence in Europe (Intersentia 2010)
  6. DEMİRBAŞ, Timur, ‘Soruşturma Evresinde Şüphelinin İfadesinin Alınması ve Müdafilik’, Ceza Hukuku Dergisi, Sayı:4, Ağustos 2007, ss. 79-95
  7. DÜLGER, Murat Volkan, ‘Ceza Muhakemesinde Müdafinin Konumu ve Uygulamada Karşılaşılan Sorunlar’, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 2012/4, ss. 41- 76
  8. ELVERİS, Idil, ‘Chapter 11 Turkey’ in Cape E and others (eds), Effective Criminal Defencein Europe (Intersentia 2010)
  9. HODGSON, Jacqueline, ‘From the Domestic to the European: An Empirical Approach to Comparative Custodial Legal Advice’ in Jacqueline E Rossand Stephen C Thaman (eds.), Comparative Criminal Procedure (Edward Elgar Publishing 2016)
  10. HODGSON, Jacqueline, ‘“Safeguarding Suspects” Rights in Europe: A Comparative Perspective’ New Criminal Law Review, Vol.14(4), 2011, pp.611-665
  11. GIANNOULOPOULOS, Dimitrios, ‘Custodial Legal Assistance and Notification of the Right to Silence in France: Legal Cosmopolitanism and Local Resistance’ Criminal Law Forum, Vol.24(3), 2013, pp.291-329
  12. GIANNOULOPOULOS, Dimitrios, ‘“North of the Border and Across the Channel“:Custodial Legal Assistance Reforms in Scotland and France’ Criminal Law Review, Vol.5, 2013, pp.369-384
  13. JACKSON, John, ‘Cultural Barriers on the Road to Providing Suspects with Access to a Lawyer’ in Renaud Colson and Stewart Field (eds.), EU Criminal Justice and the Challenges of Diversity: Legal Cultures in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (Cambridge University Press 2016)
  14. JACKSON, John, ‘Responses to Salduz: Procedural Tradition, Change and the Need for Effective Defence’ The Modern Law Review, Vol.76(6), 2016, pp.987-1018
  15. JACKSON, John / SUMMERS, Sarah, The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions (Cambridge University Press 2012)
  16. JAHİC, Galma / ELVERİŞ, İdil, “Müdafiliğe İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme: Değişen Kanunlar, Değişmeyen Sonuç, TBB Dergisi, Sayı:90, 2010, ss.165-194
  17. KOCAOĞLU, Serhat Sinan, ‘Ankara Barosu Ölçeğinde 5271 Sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun Barodan Müdafi Görevlendirilmesi Sistemini Ele Alan İstatistiksel Bir Araştırma ve Değerlendirme’, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 2011/ 2, ss. 32-41
  18. KOCASAKAL, Ümit, ‘The Role of Defense Counsel in Turkish Criminal Procedure’, Law & Justice Review, Year:7, Issue:12, June 2016, ss. 121- 136
  19. Laar TAHM Van de and Graaff RL De, ‘Salduz and Miranda: Is the US Supreme Court Pointing the Way?’, European Human Rights Law Review, Vol.3, 2011, pp.304-317
  20. PLEASENCE, Pascoe / KEMP, Vicky / BALMER, Nigel J., ‘The Justice Lottery? Police Station Advice 25 Years on from PACE’, Criminal Law Review, January 2011, Issue:1, pp.3-18
  21. RAMOS, Vânia Costa, ‘The Rights of the Defence According to The ECtHR: An Illustration in the Light of A.T. V. Luxembourg and the Right to Legal Assistance’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, Vol.7(4), 2016, pp.397-417
  22. SKINNS, Layla, ‘The Right to Legal Advice in the Police Station: Past, Present and Future’, Criminal Law Review, 2011, Issue:1, pp.19-39
  23. SOO, Anneli, ‘Divergence of European Union and Strasbourg Standards on Defence Rights in Criminal Proceedings? Ibrahim and the Others v. the UK (13th of September 2016)’ European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol.25(4), 2017, pp.327-346
  24. SEET, Matthew, ‘Suspected Terrorists and the Privilege Against Self Incrimination’, The Cambridge Law Journal Vol.74(2), 2015, pp.208- 21150571/08, 50573/08, and 40351/09
  25. ŞAHİN, Cumhur, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku Cilt 1 (Seçkin Yayıncılık, 8. Baskı, Ankara, 2017)
  26. VAN PUYENBROECK, Laurens / VERMEULEN, Gert, ‘Towards Minimum Procedural Guarantees for the Defence in Criminal Proceedings in the Eu’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.60(4), 2011, pp.1017-1038
  27. YILDIRIM, Akif, ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi Uygulamasında Adil Yargılanma Hakki (Ceza Hukuku Boyutu)’, TAAD, Yıl:7, Sayı:26 (Nisan 2016) ss. 333-376 ZANDER, Michael, ‘Do It by the Book’ Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, Issue:36, 2016
  28. ‘Terrorist suspects’ procedural rights: Case Comment’, European Human Rights Law Review, 2017, 1, ss. 75-79, internet erişim adresi: erişim tarihi 29.12.2017
  29. ‘Ibrahim and others v United Kingdom (App. Nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09) [2016] All ER (D) 57 (Sep)’, Criminal Law & Justice Weekly, Vol.180No.36, internet erişim adresi: erişim tarihi 29.12.2017.
  30. Afanasyev/ Ukrayna, AİHM Beşinci Daire, Başvuru No: 48057/06, 15 Kasım 2012
  31. Artico/İtalya, AİHM, Başvuru No: 6694/74, 13 Mayıs 1980
  32. Artur Parkhomenko/Ukrayna, AİHM Beşinci Daire, Başvuru No: 40464/05, 16 Şubat 2017
  33. A.T./Lüksemburg, AİHM Beşinci Daire, Başvuru No: 30460/13, 9 Nisan 2015
  34. Brusco/Fransa, AİHM Beşinci Daire, Başvuru No: 1466/07, 14 Ekim 2010
  35. Dayanan/Türkiye, AİHM İkinci Daire, Başvuru No: 7377/03, 13 Ekim 2009
  36. İbrahim ve Diğerleri/Birleşik Krallık, AİHM Büyük Daire, Başvuru No: 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 ve 40351/09, 13 Eylül 2016
  37. Imbrioscia/İsviçre, AİHM, Başvuru No: 13972/88, 24 Kasım 1993
  38. Kamasinski/Avusturya, AİHM, Başvuru No: 9783/82, 19 Aralık 1989
  39. Khayrov/Ukrayna AİHM Beşinci Daire, Başvuru No: 19157/06, 15 Kasım 2012
  40. Loboda/Ukrayna, AİHM Beşinci Daire, Başvuru No: 8865/06, 17 Kasım 2016
  41. Pishchalnikov/Rusya, AİHM Birinci Daire, Başvuru No: 7025/04, 24 Eylül 2009
  42. Salduz/Türkiye, AİHM Büyük Daire, Başvuru No: 36391/02, 27 Kasım 2008
  43. Sitnevskiy and Chaykovskiy/Ukrayna, AİHM Beşinci Daire, Başvuru No: 48016/06 ve 7817/07, 10 Kasım 2016
  44. Yevgeniy Petrenko/Ukrayna, AİHM Beşinci Daire, Başvuru No: 55749/08, 29 Ocak 2015
  45. Zamferesko/Ukrayna, AİHM Beşinci Daire, Başvuru No: 30075/06, 15 Kasım 2012
  46. Zherdev/Ukrayna, AİHM Beşinci Daire, Başvuru No: 34015/07, 27 Nisan 2017
  47. Miranda/Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
  48. R/Sinclair [2010] 2 SCR 310
  49. Onurhan Solmaz Başvurusu, Başvuru No: 2012/1049, Karar Tarihi: 26/3/2013, internet erişim için: erişim tarihi 29/12/2017
  50. BERGER, Mark, ‘Self-Incrimination and the European Court of Human Rights: Procedural Issues in the Enforcement of the Right to Silence’, European Human Rights Law Review, Vol.5, 2007, pp.514-533
  51. HODGSON, Jacqueline, ‘From the Domestic to the European: An Empirical Approach to Comparative Custodial Legal Advice’ in Jacqueline E Rossand Stephen C Thaman (eds.), Comparative Criminal Procedure (Edward Elgar Publishing 2016)
  52. JACKSON, John, ‘Responses to Salduz: Procedural Tradition, Change and the Need for Effective Defence’ The Modern Law Review, Vol.76(6), 2016, pp.987-1018
  53. JACKSON, John / SUMMERS, Sarah, The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions (Cambridge University Press 2012)