CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 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 } .s9E10B953 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 11 May 2017   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 37273/15 and 40913/15 Dervıs USUL against Germany and Hakkı SOYTÜRK against Germany lodged on 24 July 2015 and 11 August 2015 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The cases concern the applicants’ conviction of drug offences, committed jointly with others. In its judgment of 7 November 2012, confirmed on appeal, the Berlin Regional Court found that the second applicant had been unlawfully incited by State authorities to commit the offences in question. It therefore mitigated both his sentence and the sentence imposed on the first applicant. The applicants claim that their conviction following the entrapment by State authorities without a sufficient legal basis violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Having regard, in particular, to the Court’s judgment in the case of Furcht v. Germany (no. 54648/09, 23 October 2014) and the cases cited therein, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention?   (a)     In particular, were they incited by State authorities to commit the drug offences they were convicted of? If so, did they have a fair trial in view of the fact that evidence obtained by entrapment was used in the proceedings against them?   (b)     Which was the procedure to be followed under domestic law for the authorisation and supervision of the undercover operation?   (c)     Did the applicants lose their status as a victim of the alleged breach of Article 6 as a result of the domestic courts’ response to the allegations of police incitement?