CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 9 May 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 28377/11 Ali KARATAY against Turkey lodged on 28 April 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the use of the applicant’s statements allegedly obtained under duress and in the absence of a lawyer, in the criminal proceedings against him, in violation of Article 6 of the Convention (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Özcan Çolak v.   Turkey, no. 30235/03, §§ 47 ‑ 50, 6 October 2009; and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR   2016;). It further pertains to the applicant’s deprivation of his right to vote, as well as his right to chair or audit foundations, associations, unions, companies, cooperatives and political parties as a result of imposition of a prison sentence for an offence committed intentionally. The case therefore raises issues under Article 3 of Protocol No.   1 (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC] no. 74025/01, § 40 ‑ 85, ECHR 2005 ‑ IX, and Söyler v.   Turkey , no. 29411/07, §§ 36 ‑ 47, 17 September 2013) and Article 11 of the Convention. Lastly, the application concerns the applicant’s right to respect for her correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention (see Eylem Kaya v. Turkey , no. 26623/07, §§ 41 ‑ 49, 13 December 2016).   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     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, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during the preliminary investigation (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no.   36391/02, ECHR 2008, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016)?   2.     Having regard to the judgments in the cases of Hirst v.   the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC] (no. 74025/01, § 40-85, ECHR 2005 ‑ IX), and Söyler v.   Turkey , (no. 29411/07, §§ 36-47, 17 September 2013) has there been a breach of the applicant’s right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1?   3.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 11 of the Convention on account of the automatic deprivation of his right to chair or audit foundations, associations, unions, companies, cooperatives and political parties as a result of imposition of a prison sentence for an offence committed intentionally (Section 53 § 1 (d) of the Criminal Code)?   4.     Having regard to the judgment in the case of Eylem Kaya v.   Turkey , (no.   26623/07 , §§ 41-49, 13 December 2016), has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence under Article   8?   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(s) of the trial court, documentary evidence against the applicant and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.