CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 juin 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 } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 25 June 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no.   5517/10 İhsan AKYAZ against Turkey lodged on 21 December 2009 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 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 concerns the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the trial court due to the presence of a military judge in its composition for the first three years of the trial (see Incal v. Turkey , 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ IV; and compare Ceylan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 68953/01, 30 August 2005) and the number of changes in the composition of the trial court’s bench during the trial. 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.     Did the applicant receive a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see İncal v. Turkey , 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ IV; and compare Ceylan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 68953/01, 30   August 2005)?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the changes occurred in the composition of the trial court (see, mutatis mutandis , Moiseyev v. Russia , no. 62936/00, §§ 172/185, 9   October 2008? In particular: (a)     How many times has the composition of the trial court changed during the applicant’s trial? (b)     What were the reason and the legal basis of those changes? (c)     Were there any procedural safeguards to circumscribe their effects? (d)     Did those changes in any way affect independence and impartiality of the trial court?