CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 26 July 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 52544/18 Savaş HİNDİOĞLU against Turkey lodged on 15 October 2018 communicated on 9 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his   alleged inability to examine the witnesses whose identities were protected (three police officers) in person before the trial court (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v.   the   United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR   2011; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015; and Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey , no. 74845/12, 30 July 2019). The applicant complains of a violation of his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the Convention. 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.   Was the applicant able to examine witnesses (three police officers) against him, as required by Article 6 § (d) of the Convention? b.   Was there a good reason for the non-attendance of the applicant or his lawyer   at the session held on 19 December 2012 by the trial court,   during which it examined the police officers? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts’ judgments? c.   Did the evidence of those witnesses serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant’s conviction? d.   Did the domestic courts’ judgments indicate that they had approached the statements given by the witnesses with any specific caution? e.   Did the domestic courts provide the applicant with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine the witnesses before the trial court?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgment(s) of the trial court, and the Court of Cassation, documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.