CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 octobre 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 15 October 2020 Published on 2 November 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 18815/18 Abdullah SAÇAK against Turkey lodged on 11 April 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of the domestic courts’ alleged failure to examine the authenticity and the reliability of the main piece of evidence against the applicant, namely the intercepted telephone conversations, before convicting him (see, mutatis mutandis , Horvatić v.   Croatia , no. 36044/09, 17 October 2013). On 4 December 2014 the trial court convicted the applicant for membership of a terrorist organisation and sentenced him to six years and three months’ imprisonment. Throughout the criminal proceedings, the applicant denied ownership of the intercepted mobile telephone and the SIM card found therein. They were not amongst the items found on the applicant or at his house. Moreover, at a hearing held on 3 June 2014 the public prosecutor asked the trial court to carry out a voice analysis in order to determine whether the intercepted telephone conversations were made by the co-accused. Nevertheless, the trial court dismissed that request finding that it would not contribute to the further clarification of the case ( dosyaya yenilik katmayacağı anlaşıldığından ). On 6 March 2019 the Constitutional Court declared his application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. The applicant complains under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention of the domestic court’s refusal to order a voice analysis of telephone conversations, the transcripts of which were the central evidence to convict him, with a view to determining whether he had held those conversations as alleged. 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)     Has there been a breach of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the manner in which the domestic courts handled the central evidence against the applicant, namely the transcripts of the intercepted mobile phone conversations? In that connection, what steps did the domestic courts take to subject the transcribed telephone conversations to effective judicial scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis , Niţulescu v. Romania , no. 16184/06, §§   52 ‑ 4, 22   September 2015)?   (b)     Was the applicant given an opportunity of challenging the authenticity of the intercepted mobile telephone conversations? In that connection, was the applicant given an opportunity to compare the audiotapes with his original voice? Were the applicant’s objections to the audio recordings duly attended to   (compare Niculescu v.   Romania , no.   25333/03, §§ 122-127, 25   June 2013)?   The Government are further invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the criminal proceedings against the applicant, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgments of the trial court, evidence against the applicant including the transcripts of the telephone recordings and the written submissions of the applicant throughout the proceedings.