CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juillet 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 }   Communicated on 2 July 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 52850/12 Necati ABAY against Turkey lodged on 7 June 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 (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 admission into evidence of the incriminating statements made by the applicant’s co-accused, whose right of access to a lawyer during the pre-trial stage was also restricted under the same domestic law (see Erkapić v. Croatia , no. 51198/08, § 88, 25 April 2013; Lucà v.   Italy , no. 33354/96, §§ 40-44, ECHR 2001-II and compare with Dominka v. Slovakia , no. 14630/12, §§ 28-36, 3 April 2018). 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.     Have the requirements of a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention been satisfied as regards the admission into evidence of the incriminating statements made by the applicant’s co-accused to the police which were then retracted at a later stage of the proceedings (see, for instance, Erkapić v. Croatia , no.   51198/08, § 88, 25   April 2013; Lucà v. Italy , no. 33354/96, §§ 40-44, ECHR 2001-II; and compare with Dominka v. Slovakia, (dec.) no. 14630/12, §§ 28-36, 3 April 2018)?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case, including but not limited to the applicant’s statements taken during the preliminary investigation, the evidence obtained thereby, the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgment(s) of the trial court, the decisions of the Court of Cassation, documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.