CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 avril 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 13 April 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 21715/10 Misbah SAYAN against Turkey lodged on 22 February 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicant’s right of access to a lawyer during the pre-trial stage pursuant to Law no. 3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of those statements taken in the absence of a lawyer (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and   3   others, ECHR 2016). It further pertains to the applicant’s inability to examine or have examined the witnesses during the criminal proceedings (see Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, §§   100 ‑ 131, ECHR   2015, and Daştan v. Turkey , no. 37272/08, 10 October 2017). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during the preliminary investigation (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no.   36391/02, ECHR 2008, and İbrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016)?   2.     Was the applicant able to examine the witnesses against him and have examined those on his behalf as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? If not, has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial provided by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention due to his inability to examine or have examined the witnesses (see Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-131, ECHR 2015, and Daştan v.   Turkey , no. 37272/08, 10 October 2017)?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case, including but not limited to the applicant’s statements taken during the preliminary investigation, minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgment(s) of the trial court, documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.