CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   Communicated on 3 October 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38441/09 İhsan SERİN and others against Turkey lodged on 3 July 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the claim for damages made by the applicants, after they were acquitted of all charges, for wrongful detention. Relying on the research made by law enforcement as to the social and financial status of the applicants and the report prepared by the expert witness, the court partially granted their claim, awarding each of them TRY 4,661.67 [1] in pecuniary damages and TRY 5,000 [2] in non-pecuniary damages. The Court of Cassation upheld the judgment on 23 March 2009. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were not afforded a public hearing and the amount of damages was decided solely on the basis of the documents in the case file, leaving them no possibility to comment on these or to adduce counter evidence. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Was the absence of oral hearing compatible with the applicants’ right to oral hearing (see Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, §§   43-52, ECHR 2002 ‑ V)?   (b)     Were the documents which form the basis of the court’s decision, including, the social and financial status survey made by the authorities and the report of the expert witness communicated to the applicants? In the negative, has there been a breach of the applicants’ right to adversarial proceedings on account of the non-communication of these documents and the lack of opportunity to respond (see, mutatis mutandis , Juričić v.   Croatia , no.   58222/09, §§   72-78, 26 July 2011)? APPENDIX 1. İhsan SERİN is a Turkish national who was born in 1977, lives in Hatay and is represented by V. Özkan 2. Eşref SERİN is a Turkish national who was born in 1981, lives in Hatay and is represented by V. Özkan 3. Mehdin YILMAZ is a Turkish national who was born in 1978, lives in Hatay and is represented by V. Özkan [1] .     Approximately equivalent to EUR 2,509.10 on the date of the decision. [2] .     Approximately equivalent to EUR 2,691.21 on the date of the decision.