CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 février 2018
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-181759
- Date
- 21 février 2018
- Publication
- 21 février 2018
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 21 February 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 29114/09 Ekrem KILAVUZ against Turkey and 3 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicants’ 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 in the absence of a lawyer and allegedly under duress (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). One of the applications further pertains to the applicant’s inability to examine or have examined the witnesses during the criminal proceedings (see Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, §§   100 ‑ 131, ECHR 2015). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against themselves, 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 applicants during the preliminary investigation (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no.   36391/02, ECHR 2008, and İbrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016)?   2.     Did the use of statements taken under alleged duress and in the absence of a lawyer violate the applicants’ right to a fair hearing (see Özcan   Çolak v. Turkey , no. 30235/03, §§ 47-50, 6 October 2009)?   In respect of the applicant in application no. 29114/09;   3.     Was the applicant able to examine the witnesses against him and have examined those on his behalf as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? If not, has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial provided by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention due to his inability to examine or have examined the witnesses (see Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-131, ECHR 2015)?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicants’ case, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, documentary evidence against the applicants and the reasoned judgment of the trial court, the applicants’ and their lawyers’ written submissions both before the trial court and before the Court of Cassation.   APPENDIX     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   29114/09 07/05/2009 Ekrem KILAVUZ 26/02/1976 Şanlıurfa       32848/09 01/06/2009 İbrahim GÜRCEĞİZ 20/12/1973 Diyarbakır       35818/09 03/06/2009 Mustafa BOZKURT 05/10/1974 Diyarbakır       36691/09 22/06/2009 Bilal ÇETİNER 03/02/1974 Diyarbakır        Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 21 février 2018
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-181759
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel