CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 septembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 13 September 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 57256/10 Tekin KESKİN against Turkey lodged on 13 August 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicant’s right of access to a lawyer during the pre-trial stage pursuant to Law no. 3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of those statements taken under alleged duress in the absence of a lawyer (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). It further pertains to the alleged failure to inform the applicant of his basic rights prior to those investigative measures (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no.   28439/03, 23   March 2010). The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against himself, 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.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the absence of the applicant’s lawyer during most, if not all, investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary criminal investigation, and the alleged failure to inform the applicant of his basic rights prior to those investigative measures (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan   Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010)?   3.     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, did the use of statements taken under alleged duress violate the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (see Özcan Çolak v.   Turkey, no. 30235/03, §§ 47-50, 6 October 2009)?   –     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.