CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juillet 2022

.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 } Published on 29 August 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 54945/18 Şaban TAŞDEMİR against Türkiye lodged on 1 November 2018 communicated on 13 July 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant owing to the domestic courts’ failure to give sufficient reasons to convict him of forgery of official documents, namely two promissory notes. In 2005 and 2006, the applicant obtained two bank loans on behalf of his company by using one of his immovable properties as collateral and providing several guarantees, including two promissory notes where M.G. was indicated as the maker. When the bank attempted to cash the promissory notes in question, M.G. objected, arguing that the signatures were not his. An expert report issued in the context of the proceedings before the Kayseri 1st Enforcement Court, that the bank initiated with a view to annulling M.G.’s objection, found that the signatures were not his. Consequently, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant before the Kayseri Criminal Court of First Instance, which eventually found him guilty of forgery and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. During the criminal proceedings, the applicant claimed that he had not drawn the promissory notes in question and that he had not known that they had been forged. Even though the applicant’s handwriting and signature samples were obtained in the context of the criminal proceedings, the trial court did not obtain any expert report in order to establish whether the applicant had actually issued and/or signed the promissory notes. In its judgment, the trial court relied on the enforcement court’s findings and held that the applicant drew and used the forged promissory notes. On 27 June 2018 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s individual application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the domestic courts failed to give sufficient reasons in their judgments. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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, did the domestic courts give sufficient reasons for the applicant’s conviction (see Moreira and Ferreira v. Portugal (No.   2) [GC], no.   19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11 July 2017)?