CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2019

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA875FB86 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super } .sFF7FC10F { width:95.94%; border-collapse:collapse } .sCA8669C2 { width:7.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA43DB406 { width:21.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA30DBE26 { width:11.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s54E9D62F { width:18.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3A113B6B { width:16.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2A1773AF { width:24.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA168D514 { width:7.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sE74C84FB { width:20.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2739A20B { width:21.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s61127307 { width:11.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD77B6B90 { width:18.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24A84A3E { width:16.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFE87FB53 { width:24.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3D566438 { width:7.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7CC83D4C { width:11.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBFC48707 { width:7.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC44BE576 { width:11.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 29 January 2019   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 54776/09 and 54779/09 Enver KAPLAN against Turkey and Ali Rıza YÖNDEN against Turkey lodged on 23 September 2009 and 23 September 2009 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicants on account of their alleged inability to examine a certain witness, namely E. E., in person before the trial court (see for general principles 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). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants 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)     Were the applicants able to examine the witness E. E. as required by Article   6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? What steps did the domestic courts take to secure the attendance of the witness? (b)     Was there a good reason for the non-attendance of the witness at the trial? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts’ judgments? (c)     Did the statements of the witness serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicants’ conviction? (d)     Did the domestic courts’ judgments indicate that they had approached the statements given by the witness with any specific caution? (e)     Did the domestic courts provide the applicants with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine the witness at the trial?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicants’ case, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgment of the trial court, documentary evidence against the applicants, and the written submissions of the applicants and their lawyer throughout the proceedings.   Application no 54776/09   No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative                 Enver KAPLAN 1970 Turkish Adana       Application no 54779/09   No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative                 Ali Rıza YÖNDEN 1972 Turkish Adana