CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 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 27 August 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 53848/07 Fikret KARAHAN against Turkey lodged on 26 November 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged prejudice to the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article   6 § 3 (b) due to alleged non-communication of the reasoned judgment of the trial court to his lawyer. It further concerns the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of lack of an oral hearing before the Court of Cassation despite the applicant’s request in that regard. Lastly, the application also concerns the allegation concerning the applicant’s inability to examine or have examined the witnesses during the criminal proceedings under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-131, ECHR 2015). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Was the reasoned judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court of 18   October 2006 served on the applicant’s lawyer as required by Article   35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? If not, was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article   6 §   3   (b) of the Convention? Were the applicant’s defence rights unduly affected by the non-notification of the reasoned judgment of the trial court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article   6 §   3 (b) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Baucher v.   France , no.   53640/00, §§ 46 ‑ 51, 24 July 2007, and Zoon v.   the   Netherlands , no.   29202/95, §§ 39 ‑ 51, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII) ? (b)     Did the lack of an oral hearing before the Court of Cassation prejudice the fairness of the trial against the applicant (see, for instance, Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, §§ 58-67, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII, and Tierce and Others v. San Marino , nos. 24954/94 and 2 others, §§ 92-102, ECHR   2000 ‑ IX) ? (c)     Was the applicant able to examine the witnesses against him 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 their 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 applicant’s case, including but not limited to the the document showing the notification of the reasoned judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court of 18 October 2006, the Principal Public Prosecutor’s opinion, minutes of all the hearings, documentary evidence against the applicant and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.