CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 septembre 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 17 September 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40259/07 Nezahat GÜLAĞACI against Turkey lodged on 3 September 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged prejudice to the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article   6 § 3 (d), due to an alleged lack of adequate and proper opportunity to challenge the official expert report. In that connection, the applicant complains that her request for a fresh expert examination, which was made on the ground that the official expert report had made an assessment in the absence of important technical documents that could be found in the archives of the municipality, was not taken into account by the domestic courts. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the equality of arms, as one of the elements of the broader concept of fair trial guaranteed under Article 6 § 1, taken together with Article   6 § 3 (d), respected in the present case? In particular, was the applicant given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge the official expert report that had made an assessment in the absence of important technical documents which could allegedly be found in the archives of the municipality (see, mutatis mutandis , Matytsina v. Russia , no.   58428/10, §§   168-206, 27 March 2014, and J.M. and Others v. Austria , nos.   61503/14 and   2   others, §§ 115-129, 1 June 2017)? Given the particular circumstances of the instant case and bearing in mind that there is no unqualified right to have a second expert report under Article 6 of the Convention, was it necessary to obtain another expert report in the light of the applicant’s submissions? The parties are invited to submit all the relevant documents, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, the documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and her lawyer throughout the proceedings.