CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Communicated on 2 July 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 37404/18 Aydın OĞUZ against Turkey lodged on 27 July 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his alleged inability to examine the anonymous witness “Yeter Artık” whose statements were relied on by the trial court to convict him. (see for general principles see Al ‑ Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and   22228/06, ECHR 2011 as refined in Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 107 and 118, ECHR 2015; see also Asani v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 27962/10, 1 February 2018). 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, was the applicant able to examine the anonymous witness “Yeter Artık” as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?   2.     Were there any good reasons to keep secret the identity of the witness “Yeter Artık”? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts’ judgments? -     In the negative, was there a good reason for the applicant’s inability to directly examine that witness? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts’ judgments?   3.     Did the statements of witness “Yeter Artık” serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant’s conviction?   4.     Did the domestic courts provide the applicant with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine witness “Yeter Artık” at the trial?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgment of the trial court, documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings..