CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 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 19 October 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 29779/09 Zelal ÖZGÖKÇE against Turkey lodged on 22 May 2009 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 the statements taken in the absence of a lawyer (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016, and Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no.   36391/02, ECHR 2008). It further pertains to the alleged violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention in the light of the applicant’s submission that her conviction rested on the activities that fell within the scope of those articles (see, mutatis mutandis , Çölgeçen and Others v. Turkey , nos. 50124/07 and   7   others, 12 December 2017, and Döner and Others v.   Turkey , no.   29994/02, 7 March 2017). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against herself, 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 Ibrahim and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016, and Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Articles   10 and   11 of the Convention in the light of her submission that her conviction rested on the acts that fell within the scope of those articles (see, mutatis mutandis , Çölgeçen and Others v. Turkey , nos. 50124/07 and 7   others, 12   December 2017, and Döner and Others v. Turkey , no.   29994/02, 7   March 2017)?   –     The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case, including but not limited to the evidence against the applicant listed in the reasoned judgment of the Ankara Assize Court dated 1 April 2008, and the written submissions of the applicant and her lawyer throughout the proceedings as well as the applicant’s petition dated 26 February 2004 in which she requested to benefit from Law no. 4959 and the minutes of the statements she gave in that connection before the Van State Security Court.