CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 18 September 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24682/15 Kaan SAYDAM against Turkey lodged on 13 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was tried and eventually convicted to two years and six months’ imprisonment for theft on cyber space, mainly on the basis of an IP   number corresponding to that of the applicant’s computer. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he did not have a fair hearing in that the domestic court did not evaluate at any stage of the proceedings the argument he raised in his defence, that is, a possible virus activity on his computer. He maintains that the court did not address the matter in its judgment either. The application concerns the applicant’s right to a fair hearing, having regard to the alleged failure of the domestic court to base its reasoning on objective arguments while preserving the rights of the defence and to address the essential and sole argument raised by the applicant. 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, did the judgment of the Ankara Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction dated 26 January 2010 adequately state the reasons on which it was based, taking account of the fact that the applicant waived his right to attend the hearings and was not represented by a lawyer during the course of the proceedings, matters that he does not complain about in the present application (see Hadjianastassiou v. Greece , 16 December 1992, Series   A no.   252, and Boldea v. Romania , no. 19997/02, 15 February 2007)? In that connection, did the domestic court evaluate and address in its judgment the sole argument raised by the applicant, which concerned the assessment of a possible virus activity on his computer and could be decisive for the outcome of the proceedings?   2.     The Government are further invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the criminal proceedings against the applicant, including but not limited to the minutes of the interviews conducted during the preliminary investigation stage, the indictment against the applicant, the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgment of the trial court, all the evidence against the applicant and the written submissions of the applicant throughout the proceedings.