CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 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 20 September 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38578/11 Yılmaz CAN against Turkey lodged on 11 May 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fairness of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, which resulted in his conviction under Article   146 of the former Turkish Criminal Code for attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the State. The applicant mainly complains under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention that he was denied a fair trial as he was not tried before a juvenile court despite being a minor at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. He further complains under this provision that he had been convicted despite the absence of any concrete evidence against him. 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)     Given that the applicant was a minor at the time of the events at issue, and having regard to the seriousness of the offence with which he was charged, was he able to participate effectively in the criminal proceedings conducted against him before the Istanbul State Security Court and, subsequently, the Tenth Division of the Istanbul Assize Court (see, mutatis mutandis , V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   24888/94, §§   85-86, ECHR   1999 ‑ IX, and Uzunget and Others v. Turkey , no. 21831/03, §§   34-37, 13   October 2009)? (b.)     Were any special measures taken to accommodate the special needs of the applicant as a juvenile defendant, including during the first stages of the criminal investigation where he was questioned by the police and the public prosecutor (see, for instance, Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §   195, 23   March 2016)? Were his procedural rights guaranteed under Article 6   §   1 observed throughout the criminal investigation and the ensuing criminal proceedings? (c)     In this connection, what is the relevance of Article 250   §   4 of the Code   of Criminal Procedure that came into force on 22   July 2010, which provided that juveniles could not be tried before assize courts with special jurisdiction – tasked with trying certain aggravated crimes –, such as the Tenth Division of the Istanbul Assize Court that tried and convicted the applicant? Why was the trial of juveniles before assize courts with special jurisdiction proscribed by that provision? The Government are invited to submit a copy of the criminal case-file, including the minutes of the hearings held before the Istanbul Juvenile Court .