CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 octobre 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 1 October 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45255/09 Süleyman AKKUŞ against Turkey lodged on 11 August 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his alleged inability to examine the victims in person before the trial court (see for general principles see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011 as refined in Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 107 and 118, ECHR 2015; see also Vladimir Romanov v. Russia , no. 41461/02, § 59, 24 July 2008).   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgment of the trial court, documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings. 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 applicant able to examine the victims as required by Article   6 §   3   (d) of the Convention? What steps did the domestic courts take to secure the attendance of the victims? (b)     Was there a good reason for the non-attendance of those victims at the trial? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts’ judgments? (c)     Did the statements of those victims serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant’s conviction? d)     Did the domestic courts’ judgments indicate that they had approached the statements given by the victims with any specific caution? (e)     Did the domestic courts provide the applicant with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine the victims at the trial?