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. 41954/10 Elif Nazan ŞEKER against Turkey lodged on 14 June 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant inasmuch as it relates to her right to defend herself by a lawyer of her own choosing under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention (see Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, ECHR 2015).   According to the applicant’s submissions, although she had a lawyer of her own choosing, the domestic court appointed a new lawyer from the Istanbul Bar Association to represent her outside her knowledge and addressed that lawyer for all matters concerning the proceedings. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair trial within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the trial court remove the applicant’s own counsel, namely P.S.?   (a)     In the affirmative, were there any relevant and sufficient reasons for such removal?   (b)     In the negative, what was the legal basis of the trial court’s decision to appoint a new lawyer for the applicant at a time when she had already had one and to address that lawyer for all matters concerning the proceedings? Were there any relevant and sufficient reasons for such appointment?   (c)     Was the applicant informed of the officially assigned lawyer’s appointment? If so, when and how was she informed of such appointment? Did the applicant have any communication and/or discussion with that lawyer prior to or after his appointment (see Ananyev v.   Russia , no.   20292/04, § 54, 30 July 2009)?   (d)     In any event, did the trial court’s above-mentioned practice prejudice the overall fairness of the proceedings against the applicant, depriving her of legal assistance of her own choosing in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention (see Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, ECHR 2015)?   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.