1. The extension of the effects of a derogation in time of emergency to territories not explicitly named in the notice of derogation runs counter to the object and purpose of Article 15 ECHR, since derogations from the obligations arising from the Convention are authorised only “to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”. As a consequence, derogating measures apply only to the regions where a state of emergency has been proclaimed.
(In the present case, the applicants, arrested and detained on suspicion of terrorism offences by the Turkish authorities in the city of Ankara, complained of breaches of Art. 5 ECHR. The Government maintained that, as Turkey had exercised the right of derogation under Article 15 ECHR, it had not violated the Convention. The Court noted that the city of Ankara was not included among the regions in which the state of emergency was proclaimed. Consequently, it stated that the derogation in question was inapplicable ratione loci to the facts of the case).
2. Although the special problems for national authorities posed by investigation of terrorist offences, Contracting States do not have carte blanche under Article 5 ECHR to deprive someone of his liberty. Indeed, they are subject to control by the domestic courts and, ultimately, by the Convention supervisory institutions.
(In the instant case, the applicants, six former members of the Turkish National Assembly arrested and detained on suspicion of collusion with the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), alleged the violation of Article 5, para. 3 of the Convention, since they had not been brought promptly before a judge. Moreover, they alleged the breach of Article 5, paras. 4 and 5 ECHR, since, on the one hand, they had not been able to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of their detention decided by a judge, and, on the other hand, they couldn't claim compensation for the violation of Article 5 in the domestic courts).
