CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s2C3CD8A1 { width:10.78%; 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 } .sE56A8EFE { width:18.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2F1D810D { width:11.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s290CF08D { width:16.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC7B12555 { width:23.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s89CDB242 { width:10.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sF615212F { width:18.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEEAB5E1C { width:11.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8F1AAA67 { width:16.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3A18C2CF { width:23.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 25 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 13874/10 Vahit SEVİM and Mehmet Hanifi ÖNCEL against Turkey lodged on 17 February 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicants’ 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 (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; 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). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the principles adopted by the Grand Chamber in the case 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), has there been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?   In that connection, were there any compelling reasons to restrict the applicants’ 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 applicants 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 whether the absence of access to legal advice during the applicants’ 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 applicants’ 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 applicants and their lawyers throughout the proceedings.   APPENDIX   No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative   Vahit SEVİM 1970 Turkish Istanbul İ. Akmeşe   Mehmet Hanifi ÖNCEL 1974 Turkish Istanbul İ. Akmeşe