CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 octobre 2015

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Communicated on 12 October 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 8211/10 Mehmet CANLI against Turkey lodged on 28 December 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Mehmet Canlı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and was living in Istanbul at the time of application. He is represented before the Court by Mr İ. Akmeşe, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. On 6 August 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK. He was taken to the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate. On 7   August 2004 he was interrogated by the police in the absence of a lawyer and forced to sign a statement. On 9 August 2004 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently before the investigating judge. After the questioning was over, the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant was assisted by a lawyer while he was giving statements to the public prosecutor and the investigating judge and in front of both he stated that the statement reported by the police was partially inaccurate. On 1 September 2004, the public prosecutor prepared a bill of indictment charging the applicant with aiding and abetting the PKK and providing explosives to the PKK under Articles 169 and 264 § 2 of the now defunct Criminal Code, Law no. 765. On 15 October 2009 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as he was charged and sentenced him to three years and nine months imprisonment for aiding and abetting the PKK and to two years and six months imprisonment for the possession of explosives. The applicant was further ordered to pay a fine of 366 Turkish Lira (TRY) for providing explosives to the PKK. The Istanbul Assize Court used the applicant’s police statement while convicting him. On 15 June 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction for aiding and abetting the PKK under Article 169 but quashed the conviction for providing explosives to the PKK under Article 264 § 2. The case was remitted to the Istanbul Assize Court for the charges of providing explosives. Upon the remittal, on 31 January 2012, the Istanbul Assize Court held that there was no separate issue to examine as to whether the applicant had provided explosives or not because it was a means to aid and abet the terrorist organisation, for which the applicant had already been convicted. Subsequently, the applicant was only convicted of aiding and abetting the PKK and sentenced to three years and nine months imprisonment. COMPLAINTS The applicant maintains under Article 6 § 1 and §   3(b) and   (c) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were not fair as he was denied access to a lawyer during his police custody and his police statement was used by the trial court in convicting him (see Salduz   v.   Turkey [GC], no.   36391/02, ECHR 2008). The applicant further asserts under Article 6 § 2 that his right to remain silent was violated. The applicant finally complains under Article 13 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in conjunction with the above mentioned Articles.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES “Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him? In particular, has there been a breach of Article 6 §   3   (c) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during his police custody (see Salduz v.   Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 45-63, ECHR 2008)?”