CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 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 28 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 34392/10 Ali Haydar SAYGILI against Turkey lodged on 1 June 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicant’s 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 the statements taken in the absence of a lawyer and allegedly under duress (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no.   36391/02, ECHR 2008; Özcan Çolak v. Turkey , no. 30235/03, §§   47-50, 6   October 2009; Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   50541/08 and 3 others, 13 September 2016; and Beuze v.   Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, 9 November 2018). The Court has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant in Saygılı v. Turkey (no. 57916/00, 4 May 2006). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Court’s conclusions under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the same applicant in Saygılı v.   Turkey (no.   57916/00, 4 May 2006), 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 applicant’s statements taken from him as a result of ill-treatment and in the absence of legal assistance during the pre-trial stage? 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, §§   73-76, 17   October 2006)?   2.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, having regard to the principles adopted by the Grand Chamber in the cases of Ibrahim and Others v.   the   United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, 13   September 2016) and Beuze v. Belgium ([GC], no.   71409/10, 9 November 2018)?   In that connection, were there any compelling reasons to restrict the applicant’s right of access to a lawyer? If so, had they been temporary and based on an individual assessment of the particular circumstances of the case?   –     If answered in the affirmative, could the criminal proceedings as a whole against the applicant be considered as fair within the meaning of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, which of the relevant procedural safeguards (some of which listed non-exhaustively in § 274 of Ibrahim and Others ) were taken into account by the domestic courts in order to assess the impact of procedural shortcomings at the pre-trial stage on the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings?   –     If answered in the negative, were there any exceptional circumstances in the present case, to demonstrate that the absence of access to legal advice during the applicant’s police custody had not caused irretrievable prejudice to the overall fairness of the trial?   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, the evidence listed therein, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.