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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sE2724FBE { width:91.22%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s4E813418 { width:20.5%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sF9AE919F { width:23.78%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s340D9F01 { width:18.96%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s6D5FF8B2 { width:19.72%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sB7801C1A { width:17.02%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sDFEA2C7B { width:20.5%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24A69523 { width:23.78%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40BDA0FE { width:18.96%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s10801329 { width:19.72%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6AEE72E2 { width:17.02%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s61DCABAA { width:20.5%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s3E712FAE { width:23.78%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s95873124 { width:18.96%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .sA838761E { width:19.72%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s44FCAC62 { width:17.02%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } Communicated on 2 July 2019   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 40198/11 and 47696/11 Remzi KARAKOÇ against Turkey and Yusuf KÜÇÜKTEPE against Turkey lodged on 24 April 2011 and 4 April 2011 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants, two Turkish citizens, were tried and convicted by the domestic courts in Turkey of murdering another Turkish citizen in Germany. The applications concern the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicants on account of their inability to examine certain witnesses, who had only been heard during the criminal investigation carried out by the German authorities in Germany, 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, and see further Štulíř v. the Czech Republic , no.   36705/12, §§   53-74, 12 January 2017 ). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Were the applicants 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 applicants’ 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 applicants with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine the witnesses at the trial? LIST OF APPLICATIONS Application number Applicant’s Name Birth date Place of residence Nationality Represented by 40198/11 Remzi KARAKOÇ 11/06/1970 Bingöl German Ulrich SOMMER 47696/11 Yusuf KÜÇÜKTEPE 01/01/1972 Antalya Turkish Abbas Tevfik PİRİMOĞLU