CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 avril 2021

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 3 May 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42393/18 Ömer ADIGÜZEL against Turkey lodged on 27 July 2018 communicated on 15 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant owing to the domestic courts’ failure to give sufficient reasons for their decision to convict him (see Vetrenko v.   Moldova , no.   36552/02 , §   55, 18   May 2010; Ajdarić v. Croatia , no.   20883/09 , §   51, 13   December 2011, and Rostomashvili v. Georgia , no.   13185/07 , §   59, 8   November 2018). In the same vein, the application further pertains to the alleged breach of the principle of equality of arms in so far as it concerns the collection and examination of evidence by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§   139 ‑ 168, 18   December 2018, and Mirilashvili v   Russia , no. 6293/04, 11   December 2008). 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, did the domestic courts give sufficient reasons for the applicant’s conviction?   2.     Was the principle of equality of arms respected in connection with the collection and examination of evidence? Did the domestic courts duly examine and provide reasons in respect of the applicant’s requests by which he asked the domestic courts to carry out certain investigative steps such as an on-site examination, and to obtain a fingerprint analysis on the gun which was alleged to have been used by him (see, mutatis   mutandis , Murtazaliyeva v. Russia   [GC], no. 36658/05 , §§ 139 ‑ 168, 18   December 2018, and Mirilashvili v. Russia , no. 6293/04 , 11   December 2008)?