CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2018

.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 12 March 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 70151/12 İnanç YAMAÇ against Turkey lodged on 22 August 2012 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 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 reliability and accuracy of the evidence found at the premises of the periodical “Ülkemizde Gençlik” and the safeguards in relation to the use of such evidence. It also concerns the alleged lack of legal reasoning in the domestic courts’ judgments. Lastly, it concerns the applicant’s prosecution and conviction for periodicals found in his possession and the fact that he had been working for the periodical “Yaşadığımız Vatan”. 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? (a)     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)? (b)     Did the trial court sufficiently assess the reliability of the evidence which had been found at the premises of the periodical “Ülkemizde Gençlik” before admitting them to the case file? Were there procedural safeguards in relation to the applicant’s allegation concerning the way in which that evidence was obtained (see Ayçoban v. Turkey (dec.), nos.   42208/02, 43491/02 and 43495/02, 13 January 2005)?   (c)     Does the first-instance court’s judgment contain adequate reasoning for the applicant’s conviction under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code (see Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2   others, 11   February 2016 )?   2.     Has there been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s prosecution and conviction for periodicals found in his possession or the fact that he had been working for the periodical “Yaşadığımız Vatan”?   –     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, evidence against the applicant listed in pages   40, 41 and 45 of the reasoned judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court dated 11   December 2009, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.