CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 March 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 16896/11 Mehmet İhsan ILISAL against Turkey lodged on 7 December 2010   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE   The application concerns the validity of the applicant’s waiver of his right to have access to a lawyer while in police custody (see Salduz v.   Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008, and Yoldaş v.   Turkey , no.   27503/04, 23 February 2010). QUESTION Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during his detention in police custody (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, ECHR 2016)? In particular, could the applicant be considered to have waived his right to legal assistance in the circumstances of the instant case (see Yoldaş v.   Turkey , no. 27503/04, 23 February 2010)?