CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 8 July 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 69539/12 Abdulcelil İMRET against Turkey lodged on 18 September 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction on charges of electricity theft and breaking the seal on the metre box. He was sentenced to a judicial fine in respect of both offences. The application raises issues under Article 6 § 1, mainly on account of (i)   the absence of the public prosecutor from the applicant’s trial at the criminal court of first-instance and (ii) his inability to appeal part of his conviction as the judicial fine at issue was lower than the statutory threshold for an appeal to the Court of Cassation, pursuant to the rules of procedure in force at the material time. 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; (a)     Did the absence of the public prosecutor from the trial before the Batman Civil Court of First-Instance undermine the fair trial guarantees under Article 6 § 1? Did the trial court assume any prosecutorial functions during the course of the trial (see, mutatis mutandis , Thorgeir Thorgeirson v.   Iceland , 25 June 1992, §§ 46-54, pp. 22 ­ 24, Series A no. 239, and Krivoshapkin v. Russia , no. 42224/02, §§ 41-46, 27 January 2011)? (b)     Was the applicant, or his lawyer, provided with an opportunity to participate at the on-site inspection ( keşif ) conducted on 5 May 2011, as required under Article 84 §§ 1 and 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? If not, did this failure, coupled with the applicant’s inability to question the expert appointed by the court –   whose inspection report largely formed the basis of his conviction – amount to a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial provided by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Constanti nides v. Greece , no. 76438/12, §§ 37-52, 6   October 2016, and Avagyan v. Armenia , no. 1837/10, §§ 38-47, 22   November 2018)?   2.     Did the inability of the applicant to lodge an appeal against his conviction under Article 203 § 1 of the Criminal Code for breaking a seal ( mühür bozma ) constitute a disproportionate interference with his right of access to a court, in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain , 19 December 1997, §§   35-39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ VIII, and Bayar and Gürbüz v. Turkey , no. 37569/06, §§ 37-49, 27 November 2012)?