CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s8BB6D734 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3C33F117 { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside }   Communicated on 11 October 2018   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 75297/11 and 81535/12 Bekir ÇADİRCİ and Müdet KÖMÜRCÜ against Turkey and Nurettin KILIÇASLAN and Cemal SOĞUKPINAR against Turkey lodged on 8 September 2011 and 23 November 2012 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications mainly concern the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicants’ right of access to a lawyer during the pre-trial stage pursuant to Law no.   3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of statements taken in the absence of a lawyer (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, 13   September 2016).   Application no. 75297/11 also concerns the use of the applicants’ police statements allegedly obtained under ill-treatment to convict them and the alleged absence of the applicants’ lawyer during the investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary investigation stage (see Gäfgen v.   Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2010, and Göçmen v.   Turkey , no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006 and see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010).   The Court has already found both substantive and procedural violations of Article   3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in Müdet   Kömürcü v. Turkey (no. 40160/05, 21 July 2009) and Karagöz and   Others v.   Turkey (nos. 14352/05 and 2 others, 13 July 2010).   Application no. 81535/12 also involves a complaint about the use by the trial court of the evidence given by the first applicant under alleged ill ‑ treatment while in police custody (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no.   22978/05, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2010, and Göçmen v.   Turkey , no.   72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006).   The Court has also found a substantive violation of Article   3 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant in Durmuş Kurt and Others v.   Turkey, (no. 12101/03, 31 May 2007). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES COMMON QUESTION Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against themselves, 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 applicants during the preliminary investigation (see Ibrahim and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016; and Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008)? ADDITIONAL CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS In respect of the applicants in application no. 75297/11 1.     Having regard to the Court’s conclusions under Article   3 of the Convention in respect of the same applicants in Karagöz and others v.   Turkey (nos. 14352/05, 38484/05 and 38513/05, 13 July 2010) and Müdet Kömürcü v. Turkey (no. 40160/05, 21 July 2009) judgments, did the applicants have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Istanbul Assize Court use the police statements taken from the applicants under ill-treatment? Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in this respect (see Gäfgen v.   Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2010, and Göçmen v.   Turkey , no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006)?   2.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the absence of the applicants’ lawyer during the investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary investigation stage (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23   March 2010)? In respect of the first applicant in application no. 81535/12 Having regard to the Court’s conclusions under Article   3 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant in Durmuş Kurt and Others v.   Turkey, (no. 12101/03, 31 May 2007) judgment, did the first applicant have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the Istanbul Assize Court use the evidence given by the first applicant under alleged ill-treatment while in police custody (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no.   22978/05, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2010, and Göçmen v.   Turkey , no.   72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006)?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicants’ cases, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, documentary evidence against the applicants and the reasoned judgment of the trial court, the applicants’ and their lawyers’ written submissions both before the trial court and before the Court of Cassation. No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant name date of birth place of residence nationality Represented by   75297/11 08/09/2011   Bekir ÇADİRCİ 01/02/1974 Istanbul Turkish   Müdet KÖMÜRCÜ 21/05/1972 Ardahan Turkish Mehmet Ali KIRDÖK   Mihriban KIRDÖK   Meral HANBAYAT YEŞİL   81535/12 23/11/2012   Nurettin KILIÇASLAN 15/11/1972 Tunceli Turkish   Cemal SOĞUKPINAR 26/07/1967 Istanbul Turkish Mehmet Ali KIRDÖK   Meral HANBAYAT YEŞİL   Ümit SİSLİGUN   APPENDIX ²