CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 avril 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA455ED1B { margin-left:14.2pt; font-family:Arial }   Communicated on 17 April 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 5939/12 Tarık ATEŞ and others against Turkey lodged on 16 December 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns 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 (see İbrahim and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016, and Salduz v.   Turkey [GC], no.   36391/02, ECHR 2008). It further concerns the applicants’ inability to challenge electronic evidence against them, specifically the evidence that had been presented by the police based on seized computers and CDs (see, mutatis mutandis, Mirilashvili v.   Russia , no. 6293/04, § 156-166, 11   December 2008). 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.     Were the applicants given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge electronic evidence against them, specifically the evidence that had been presented by the police based on seized computers and CDs, in accordance with Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Mirilashvili v. Russia , no. 6293/04, § 156-166, 11 December 2008)?   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, the reasoned judgment(s) of the trial court, documentary evidence against the applicants, the written submissions of the applicants and his or her lawyer throughout the proceedings. APPENDIX List of applicants     Tarık ATEŞ is a Turkish national who was born in 1980, lives in Diyarbakir and is represented by M. Özbekli Selim ALTUN is a Turkish national who was born in 1979, lives in Diyarbakir and is represented by M. Özbekli Mehmet Salih PUSMAK is a Turkish national who was born in 1970, lives in Diyarbakir and is represented by M. Özbekli