CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juillet 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 } Communicated on 5 July 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 81428/12 Orhan ÇETİN against Turkey lodged on 31 October 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his inability to examine certain witnesses in person before the trial court (see, for general principles, 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). 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: (a)     Was the applicant able to examine the witnesses as required by Article   6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? What steps did the domestic courts take to secure the attendance of the witnesses? (b)     Was there a good reason for the non-attendance of the witnesses at the trial? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts’ judgments? (c)     Did the statements of the witnesses serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant’s conviction? (d)     Did the domestic courts’ judgments indicate that they had approached the statements given by the witnesses with any specific caution? (e)     Did the domestic courts provide the applicant with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine the witnesses at the trial?