CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Communicated on 2 July 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15048/11 Gürbüz ALTINEL against Turkey lodged on 27 November 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant due to lack of sufficient reasons provided by the domestic courts in their judgments, by which the applicant was convicted under Article 220 § 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment (see Vetrenko v. Moldova , no. 36552/02, § 55, 18   May 2010; Ajdarić v. Croatia , no. 20883/09, § 51, 13 December 2011; and Rostomashvili v. Georgia , no. 13185/07, § 59, 8 November 2018). 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, were sufficient reasons given by the domestic courts for the applicant’s conviction (see Vetrenko v.   Moldova , no.   36552/02, § 55, 18 May 2010; Ajdarić v. Croatia , no. 20883/09, §   51, 13   December 2011; and Rostomashvili v. Georgia , no. 13185/07, §   59, 8   November 2018)? 2.     Did the domestic courts question the veracity and probative value of the evidence against the applicant, in particular statements given by the co ‑ accused?   The Government is 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, statements of the applicant and the other accused, namely A.D., S.E., A.E., and T.G. both before the investigating authorities and military courts, reasoned judgments of the military courts, documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings. Furthermore, the Government is invited to submit the translation of the nineteenth page of the reasoned judgment of the trial court dated 16 July 2009.