CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mai 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Communicated on 31 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 2577/19 Sedat BAYGELDİ against Turkey lodged on 20 December 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his alleged inability to examine the statements of S.B., the victim, in person before the trial court (see for general principles see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011 as refined in Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 107 and 118, ECHR   2015; and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia , no. 41461/02, § 59, 24 July 2008). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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: 1.a.     Was the applicant able to examine S.B. as required by Article   6 §   3   (d) of the Convention? What steps did the domestic courts take to secure the attendance of that witness before the trial court? 1.b.     Was there a good reason for the non-attendance of S.B. at the trial? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts’ judgments? 1.c.     Did the statements of S.B. serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant’s conviction? 1.d.     Did the domestic courts’ judgments indicate that they had approached the statements given by S.B. with any specific caution? 1.e.     Did the domestic courts provide the applicant with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine S.B. before the trial court?   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, written requests from the trial court, 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 .