CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mai 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 14 May 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 18679/10 Cevdet BAYIR against Turkey lodged on 8 March 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). The application further concerns the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the trial court due to the presence of a military judge in its composition at the initial stage of the trial (see Incal v. Turkey , 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ IV, and compare Ceylan v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 68953/01, 30 August 2005). 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 Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016)? 2.     Did the applicant receive a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Incal v.   Turkey , 9   June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ IV, and compare Ceylan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 68953/01, 30 August 2005)?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case, including but not limited to the statements of the applicant taken during the preliminary investigation stage, minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgment(s) delivered in respect of the applicant, documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.