CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 juin 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 }   Communicated on 28 June 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 40495/15 Yildiz AKBAY and Namik AKBAY against Germany lodged on 11 August 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The case concerns the conviction of Namik Akbay, the deceased husband of the applicant Yildiz Akbay, of drug offences, committed jointly with others. In its judgment of 7 November 2012, confirmed on appeal, the Berlin Regional Court found that Namik Akbay had been unlawfully incited by State authorities to commit the offences in question. It therefore mitigated his sentence. The applicant claims that her husband’s conviction following the entrapment by State authorities without a sufficient legal basis and without his having been able to cross-examine the police informer involved violated Article 6 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant, Yildiz Akbay, the wife of the deceased Namik Akbay, have locus standi to lodge the application on her behalf and was the application thus compatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention in this respect, as required by Article 34?   2.     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 Namik Akbay have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention?   (a)     In particular, was he incited by State authorities to commit the drug offences he was convicted of? If so, did he have a fair trial in view of the fact that evidence obtained by entrapment was used in the proceedings against him? And was he able to examine the witnesses against him in the proceedings, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?   (b)     Which was the procedure to be followed under domestic law for the authorisation and supervision of the undercover operation?   (c)     Did Namik Akbay lose his 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?