CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 novembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s85E2A1C4 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .sD271F6F6 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s3E08F9CA { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC54D2024 { border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF42CB81 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2DC98A4F { margin-left:29.67pt; text-align:center; padding-left:6.33pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85D71A24 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3DE46EBF { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD3B88E32 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA30831E3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 5 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 8019/12 and 10688/12 Kemal GÜNGÜ and Others against Turkey and Hasan SEVİM against Turkey lodged on 16 December 2011 and 6 January 2012 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The applications 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).   The applications also concern 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).   Application no. 10688/12 also concerns the use by the trial court of the other co-defendants’ statements taken under alleged duress and in the absence of a lawyer (see Erkapić v. Croatia , no. 51198/08, 25 April 2013; Ömer Güner v. Turkey , no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; and compare Dominka v. Slovakia , (dec.) no.   14630/12, §§ 28-36, 3 April 2018). It further pertains to the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of the absence of a hearing before the Court of Cassation (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). The Court has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant in application no. 10688/12 in Yeşil and Sevim v.   Turkey , (no. 34738/04, 5 June 2007). Furthermore, the applicants and the Government reached friendly settlements concerning the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in Doğan v. Turkey (no.   24939/94, 10   July 2001), Güngü v. Turkey (no. 24945/94, 18 December 2001), and Kalın and Others v. Turkey (no. 24849/94 and 2 others, 28   October 2003. COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     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 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)?   2 .     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the absence of the applicants’ lawyers during the investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary investigation (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no.   28439/03, 23 March 2010)? ADDITIONAL CASE - SPECIFIC QUESTIONS In respect of the applicants in application no. 8019/12 Having regard to the friendly settlements concerning the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in Doğan v. Turkey (no.   24939/94, 10 July 2001) , Güngü v. Turkey (no. 24945/94, 18 December 2001) , and Kalın and Others v. Turkey (no. 24849/94 and 2 others, 28   October 2003) 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)? In respect of the applicant in application no. 10688/12 1.     Having regard to the Court’s conclusion under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the same applicant in Yeşil and Sevim v. Turkey , (no. 34738/04, 5 June 2007) judgment, did the applicant have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Istanbul Assize Court use the evidence obtained from the applicant 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.     Have the requirements of a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention been satisfied as regards the admission into evidence of the incriminating statements which other co-defendants had given to the police under alleged duress and in the absence of their lawyers (see Erkapić v. Croatia , no. 51198/08, 25 April 2013; Ömer Güner v.   Turkey , no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; and compare Dominka v.   Slovakia , (dec.) no.   14630/12, §§ 28-36, 3 April 2018?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of a hearing before the Court of Cassation (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)?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicants’ cases, including but not limited to the pre-trial statements of the applicants and of their co-defendants, minutes of all the hearings, documentary evidence against the applicants and the reasoned judgment(s) of the trial courts, the applicants’ and their lawyers’ written submissions both before the trial courts and before the Court of Cassation. LIST OF APPLICATionS     No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant name date of birth place of residence nationality Represented by     8019/12 16/12/2011     Kemal GÜNGÜ 20/05/1973 Kığı Turkish   Metin DOĞAN 01/01/1969 Çat Turkish   Talip KALIN 02/01/1967 Tutak Turkish   Hacer ÇEKİÇ GÜNDÜZ     10688/12 06/01/2012     Hasan SEVİM 05/09/1954 Tunceli Turkish     Faruk Nafiz ERTEKİN     Keleş ÖZTÜRK