CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 décembre 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 13 December 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 47355/11 Ramazan AYDIN against Turkey lodged on 10 May 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly 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 statements allegedly obtained under duress and in the absence of a lawyer to convict him (see Salduz v.   Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Ibrahim and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, 13 September 2016; and Özcan   Çolak v.   Turkey , no.   30235/03, §§ 47-50, 6 October 2009).   The application also involves the applicant’s complaint that he was not informed of the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer in the course of the preliminary investigation (see Titarenko v. Ukraine , no.   31720/02, §§   87-88, 20 September 2012, and Navone and Others v.   Monaco , nos.   62880/11 and 2 others, 24   October 2013).   It further relates to the applicant’s alleged inability to examine or have examined the witnesses against him (see Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-131, ECHR 2015, and Daştan v.   Turkey , no.   37272/08, 10 October 2017).   The case raises, inter alia , issues similar to those in the case of Süsem v.   Turkey (58038/11) (communicated). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against himself, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? When did the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention start applying to the applicant in the instant case? Was the applicant informed of his basic rights such as the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer in the course of the preliminary investigation (see, mutatis mutandis , Titarenko v.   Ukraine , no. 31720/02, §§ 87-88, 20 September 2012, and Navone and   Others v.   Monaco , nos. 62880/11 and 2 others, 24 October 2013)?   2.     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, 13 September 2016)?   3.     Did the use of evidence obtained under alleged duress during the preliminary investigation stage violate the applicant’s rights to a fair hearing (see Özcan Çolak v. Turkey , no. 30235/03, 6 October 2009)?   4.     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)?