CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sD443BBE2 { width:95%; border-collapse:collapse } .s75B6FE49 { width:7.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sCB380DBD { width:33.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5B1078AF { width:27.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s43325BE5 { width:30.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC3E2F90B { width:7.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCDD55F3 { margin-left:14.17pt; padding-left:3.68pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s3207FF05 { width:33.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s980143DB { width:27.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2362A5F { width:30.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE58FF9D5 { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:2.84pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } Published on 25 October 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39712/16 Nadir YILDIRIM and Others against Turkey lodged on 29 June 2016 communicated on 8 October 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged breach of the applicants’ presumption of innocence on account of the wording adopted by the trial judge in his letter addressed to the Ministry of Justice whereby he requested that the parliamentary immunity of the applicants, who had, in the course of the trial, been elected as members of the National Assembly, be lifted. The letter in question contained the investigation reports ( fezleke ) drawn up by the relevant public prosecutors together with the judge’s statement that in view of the findings contained in those reports, it has been understood that the applicants had committed the offences attributed to them (see Nešťák v.   Slovakia , no. 65559/01, § 88, 27 February 2007).   The applicants complain under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that their right to be presumed innocent was breached due to the remarks contained in the trial judge’s letter to the Ministry of Justice, even though they had been tried by the offences indicated in the investigation reports by a court, of which that judge was a part.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of their complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to explain what are the available and effective domestic remedies in respect of complaints in regard to alleged breaches of presumption of innocence on account of prejudicial statements made by public officials, including, in particular members of a court. In that connection, the Government are further requested to submit examples of relevant domestic case-law capable of demonstrating the practical effectiveness of any such remedies.   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?   The Government are invited to provide the Court with copies of all the relevant documents regarding the applicants’ complaints. APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Place of residence     Nadir YILDIRIM 1981 Ankara     Selma IRMAK 1972 Ankara     Besime KONCA 1970 Kocaeli     Alican ÖNLÜ 1967 Tunceli             Dirayet TAŞDEMİR 1982 Siirt   6. Ahmet YILDIRIM 1972 Ankara