CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Communicated on 11 May 2020 Published on 2 June 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25852/18 Yunus DELİKTAŞ against Turkey lodged on 3 May 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant owing to the dismissal of his request that a hearing be held before the Regional Appeal Court ( istinaf mahkemesi ). The applicant relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. Regional appeal courts, which are empowered to examine a case before them with respect to facts and law, began operating in Turkey as of 20   July 2016. Parties, save for a public prosecutor, to a case before a regional appeal court are not under an obligation to submit any grounds of their application in their appeal. It means that these courts may consider factual and legal issues without being invoked by the parties. The first instance court found that, inter alia , on the basis of the witnesses’ statements the applicant committed the offence of bribery and sentenced him to three years and four months’ imprisonment. In his appeal, the applicant challenged the first instance court’s judgment with respect to the facts and law and requested that a hearing be held before the Regional Appeal Court. On 30 May 2017 the Ankara Regional Appeal Court carried out the appellate review without holding a hearing and without addressing the applicant’s request to that effect. After examining all the factual and legal issues of the case, it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first instance court’s judgment. On 10 July 2017 the applicant lodged an individual application before the Constitutional Court complaining of, inter alia , the Regional Appeal Court’s dismissal of his request for a hearing to be held. On 27 October 2017 the Constitutional Court dismissed the application without however addressing the applicant’s complaint regarding the absence of an oral hearing before the Regional Appeal Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of a hearing before the Regional Appeal Court (see Ekbatani v. Sweden , no. 10563/83, § 23-33, 26 May 1988; Dondarini v.   San   Marino , no.   50545/99, §   27, 6   July 2004; Muttilainen v.   Finland , no.   18358/02, § 21–26, 22 May 2007; Seliwiak v. Poland , no. 3818/04, §   56, 21   July 2009; and Arps v. Croatia , 23444/12, § 24 – 29, 25 October 2016)?   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.