CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mars 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 }   Communicated on 11 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 4844/09 Hacı Ömer ŞAHİN against Turkey lodged on 19 January 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the independence and impartiality of the General Staff Court on account of the presence of the military officer on its bench (see Gürkan v. Turkey , no. 10987/10, 3 July 2012). In the same vein, it also concerns the question whether the applicant was a civilian tried by a court composed exclusively of military personnel (see Ergin v.   Turkey (no.   6) , no. 47533/99, ECHR 2006 ‑ VI (extracts); Özel and Others v.   Turkey , no.   37626/02, § 29, 31 January 2008; and Ahmet Doğan v.   Turkey , no.   37033/03, 10 March 2009). It further relates to the applicant’s right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence against the public prosecutor’s opinion on the merits of the case submitted during the hearing held on 30   July 2008 in view of his allegation that he was given one hour to prepare his defence submissions without access to any legal material. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair trial in the determination of the criminal charges against him within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention? In particular,   (a)     Could the Military Court in Ankara ( Kara Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı Askeri Mahkemesi ), which tried and convicted the applicant be considered as independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the presence of the military officer in its bench (see Ibrahim Gürkan v. Turkey , no. 10987/10, 3 July 2012)?   (b)     Did the applicant’s trial as a civilian in a military court composed exclusively of military officers give rise to a breach of his right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ergin v. Turkey (no. 6) , no. 47533/99, ECHR 2006 ‑ VI (extracts); Özel and Others v. Turkey , no. 37626/02, § 29, 31 January 2008; and Ahmet Doğan v. Turkey , no. 37033/03, 10 March 2009)?   2.     Has the applicant been guaranteed under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence against the public prosecutor’s opinion on the merits of the case submitted during the hearing held on 30 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.