CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 novembre 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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6186A45 { width:104.38%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5FFF54 { width:8.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s58FA5326 { width:25.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2BE383EF { width:10.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1A22BE2A { width:17.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3C4B9ACB { width:16.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s96418EBF { width:21.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s97DF9F40 { width:8.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s5CACD8B4 { width:25.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5E4C2164 { width:10.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE2B2C8BB { width:17.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sED72F51C { width:16.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9ADA6CC9 { width:21.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 5 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 73408/10 Bülent GEDİK and Devrim ÖKTEM against Turkey lodged on 1 December 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the first and the fifth applicants’ rights of access to a lawyer during the pre-trial stage pursuant to Law no.   3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of 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, 13   September 2016)   The application also concerns the use of the first and the fifth applicants’ police statements allegedly obtained under ill-treatment to convict them and the alleged absence of the applicants’ lawyer during the investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary investigation stage (see Gäfgen v.   Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2010, and Göçmen v.   Turkey , no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010).   Lastly, the application relates to the independence and impartiality of the trial court 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 Court has also found violations of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants, respectively, in Batı and Others v.   Turkey (no.   33097/96 and 57834/00, 3 June 2004 ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES With regard to the applicants Bülent Gedik and Devrim Öktem 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against themselves, 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 applicants 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, 13   September 2016)?   2.     Having regard to the Court’s conclusions under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the same applicants in Batı and Others v.   Turkey (no.   33097/96 and 57834/00, 3 June 2004 ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)) judgment, did the applicants have a fair trial within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Istanbul Assize Court use the evidence obtained from the applicants under ill-treatment ? Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in this respect (see Gäfgen v.   Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2010, and Göçmen v.   Turkey , no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006)?   3 .     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the absence of the applicants’ lawyers during the investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary investigation, and the alleged failure to inform the applicants of their basic rights prior to the investigative measures (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v.   Turkey , no.   28439/03, 23 March 2010 )?   4.     Did the applicants 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)?       N o . Firstname Lastname Date of birth Nationality Place of residence Representative   Bülent GEDİK 1974 Turkish Kocaeli G. Tuncer   Devrim ÖKTEM 1975 Turkish Kocaeli G. Tuncer