CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mai 2017

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8FA62C20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt }   Communicated on 5 May 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 5592/10 Özgür UYANIK against Turkey lodged on 16 January 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the alleged use of the applicant’s statements obtained as a result of ill-treatment and in the absence of a lawyer, in the criminal proceedings against him, in violation of Article 6 of the Convention. It further concerns the alleged unfairness of the proceedings as a result of the applicant’s lawyer’s absence from the hearing before the Court of Cassation. The Court has already found both a substantive and a procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant in Özgür   Uyanık v. Turkey , (no.   11068/04, 23 March 2010). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Court’s conclusions under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the same applicant in Özgür Uyanık v. Turkey , (no.   11068/04, 23 March 2010) judgment, did the applicant have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: –     Was the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court based on the police statements taken from the applicant as a result of ill-treatment and in the absence of legal assistance? Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in this respect (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no.   22978/05, §§   165-166, ECHR 2010, and Göçmen v. Turkey , no. 72000/01, §§   73-74, 17   October 2006)? 2.     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 detention in police custody (see İbrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3   others, ECHR   2016; and Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no.   36391/02, ECHR   2008)? 3.     Was the applicant’s representative served with the notice of the date of the hearing before the Court of Cassation? If not, was the applicant’s lawyer’s absence from this hearing before the Court of Cassation in compliance with requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? 4.     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, evidence against the applicant and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.