CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juillet 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 13 July 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 49801/09 Fırat ESMEZ against Turkey lodged on 31 August 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawful search at the applicant’s home and the use by the trial court of evidence obtained thereby to secure his conviction (see, mutatis mutandis , Prade v. Germany , no.   7215/10, 3   March 2016). It further relates to the existence of procedural safeguards as regards the admissibility and reliability of such evidence and the domestic courts’ examination concerning the manner of the execution of the search (see, mutatis mutandis , Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009; Lisica v. Croatia , no. 20100/06, 25 February 2010; Horvatić v.   Croatia , no.   36044/09, 17 October 2013; and, Layijov v. Azerbaijan , no.   22062/07, 10   April 2014). Finally, it concerns the absence of the applicant’s lawyer during the impugned search. The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: a)     Did the national courts use every reasonable opportunity to examine the lawfulness of the search of the applicant’s house and check the reliability as well as the accuracy of the evidence obtained thereby (see, mutatis mutandis , Prade v. Germany , no. 7215/10, 3 March 2016)? Were there procedural safeguards in relation to the applicant’s allegation concerning the way in which the search was carried out (see, mutatis mutandis , Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009; Lisica v.   Croatia , no. 20100/06, 25 February 2010; Horvatić v.   Croatia , no.   36044/09, 17 October 2013; and, Layijov v. Azerbaijan , no.   22062/07, 10   April 2014)? b)     Was the applicant provided with legal assistance from the moment of his arrest? If so, was his lawyer present during the search conducted at the applicant’s home?   -     The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents related to the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the video recording of the search carried out at the applicant’s home on 28   December 2005.