CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 7 February 2020 Published on 24 February 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42881/18 Bülent BEKDEMİR against Turkey lodged on 29 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicant’s right of access to a lawyer during the pre-trial stage pursuant to Law no.   3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of statements taken in the absence of a lawyer to convict him (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no.   36391/02, ECHR   2008; and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   50541/08 and 3 others, 13 September 2016). In the same vein, the application further pertains to the alleged absence of the applicant’s lawyer during the investigative measures carried out in the course of the preliminary investigation stage (see mutatis mutandis Hakan   Duman v. Turkey , no.   28439/03, 23   March 2010 and see also Beuze v.   Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, 9 November 2018; Laska and Lika v.   Albania , nos.   12315/04 and 17605/04, § 67, 20   April 2010). The applicant was convicted of attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the state under Article 146 of the then Turkish Criminal Code and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. Subsequently, the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court which did not find a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial holding that his statements taken in the absence of a lawyer were not sole or decisive evidence and that he had represented by a lawyer during the trial. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against themselves, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicants during the preliminary investigation (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no.   36391/02, ECHR 2008 ; Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   50541/08 and 3   others, 13   September 2016 ; and Beuze v.   Belgium [GC] , no.   71409/10, 9   November 2018)?   2.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the absence of the applicant’s lawyer during the investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary investigation (see mutatis mutandis Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010 and see also Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, 9 November 2018; and Laska   and Lika v. Albania , nos.   12315/04   and   17605/04, § 67, 20   April 2010)?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case, including but not limited to the pre-trial statements of the applicant and of their co-defendants, minutes of all the hearings, documentary evidence against the applicants and the reasoned judgment(s) of the trial courts, the applicant’s and his lawyer’s written submissions before national courts.   The Government are further requested to provide the Court with a translation of the paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Constitutional Court’s judgment decision rendered in the applicant’s case 25 January 2018.