CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2019
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-192728
- Date
- 28 mars 2019
- Publication
- 28 mars 2019
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 28 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 29386/09 Hamdi AKIN against Turkey lodged on 6 May 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged prejudice to the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article   6 § 3 (b) due to alleged non-communication of the reasoned judgment of the trial court to his lawyer. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the reasoned judgment of the Ankara Enforcement Court related to criminal matters ( Ankara İcra Ceza Hakimliği ) dated 4   December 2008 served on the applicant’s lawyer as required by the domestic law? If not, was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? Were the applicant’s defence rights unduly affected by the non-notification of the reasoned judgment of the trial court under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Baucher v. France , no. 53640/00, §§ 46 ‑ 51, 24 July 2007, and Zoon v. the Netherlands , no. 29202/95, §§ 39 ‑ 51, ECHR   2000 ‑ XII)?Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 28 mars 2019
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-192728
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel