CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 septembre 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 21 September 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 48555/08 Metin ATAY against Turkey lodged on 7 October 2008 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s inability to confront, question and examine certain witnesses, namely N.G., R.G. and N. D., during the criminal proceedings against him. It further concerns the restriction of the applicant’s right of access to a court where his appeal was declared inadmissible, as the applicant was sentenced to a fine, the amount of which was lower than the statutory threshold for an appeal to the Court of Cassation, pursuant to the Article 305/1 of the law no. 1412 then in force. The applicant relies on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention and Article   2 of Protocol no. 7 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     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 his inability to examine or have examined the witnesses (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, §§   100 ‑ 131, ECHR 2015; and Daştan v. Turkey , no. 37272/08, 10   October 2017)?   2.     Did the inability of the applicant to lodge an appeal against the judgment of the Bodrum Magistrates’ Court constitute a disproportionate interference with his right of access to a court, in violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention? (see, mutatis mutandis , Bayar and Gürbüz v.   Turkey , no.   37569/06, §§ 37-49, 27 November 2012)