CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 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 24 September 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 13378/07 Muhsin GÖLBAŞ against Turkey lodged on 22 March 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the applicant’s right to have practical and effective legal assistance (see Daud v. Portugal , 21 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ II, and Huseynli and Others v.   Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016) and the authorities’ alleged failure to notify him of the hearing held on 19   September 2006 in which he was convicted. It further pertains to the domestic authorities’ alleged failure to provide the applicant with adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, his right to defend himself in person and his alleged inability to challenge and question the witnesses against him. 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 this connection:   (a)     Were the principle of equality of arms and the applicant’s right to participate effectively in the proceedings respected? Was he duly informed of the hearing held by the Bursa Assize Court on 19 September 2006?   (b)     Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence before the hearing held by the Bursa Assize Court on 19   September 2006 as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?   (c)     Was the applicant able to defend himself, as required by Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention in the proceedings before the Bursa Assize Court after the case was quashed by the Court of Cassation on 23 February 2006?   (d)     Did the applicant receive effective legal representation in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention (see Huseynli and Others v.   Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016)?   -     In particular, was he informed of the officially assigned lawyer’s appointment? If so, when and how was the applicant informed of such appointment? Did the applicant have any communication and/or discussion with that lawyer prior to the hearing on 19 September 2006 (see Ananyev v.   Russia , no. 20292/04, § 54, 30 July 2009)?   -     Did the officially assigned lawyer submit any defence submissions prior to the hearing held on 19 September 2006 (compare Kahraman v.   Turkey , no. 42104/02, § 36, 26 April 2007)? In the negative, was the Bursa Assize Court required to intervene at the hearing held on 19   September 2006 when the officially appointed lawyer reiterated his previous submissions although it was the first hearing to which he participated as the applicant’s lawyer?   -     Did the officially assigned lawyer lodge an appeal against the Bursa Assize Court’s judgment of 19 September 2006 sentencing the applicant to one year and eight months’ imprisonment (see Daud v. Portugal , 21   April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ II)?   (e)     Was the applicant able to examine the intervening parties, namely A.S.K and M.A. against him at any stage of the proceedings? In that connection, what steps did the domestic authorities take to secure the attendance of A.S.K and M.A. in person?