CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 mars 2016

.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 } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 1 March 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 59241/10 Mehmet Emin YILDIZ against Turkey lodged on 26 August 2010     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c), as a result of the lack of legal assistance to the applicant (mandatory pursuant to Article 150 § 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code) during his police custody as well as his interrogation by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge?   2.     Was the applicant able to examine the witnesses against him as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?   In this connection, was the applicant represented by legal counsel for the hearings before the Antalya Assize Court? If this is the case, was the applicant’s legal representative informed of the date and venue of the hearings before the Antalya Assize Court?   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 the prosecution’s witnesses or to have his witnesses examined?