CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 28 August 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38593/21 Eşref ARSLAN against Türkiye lodged on 19 July 2021 communicated on 10 July 2023   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings owing to the domestic courts’ failure to deliver a reasoned judgment in respect of the applicant, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. On 21 January 2016 the applicant was convicted of breaking up the unity of the State (Article 302 § 1 of the Criminal Code) and of attempted murder (under Article 82 § 1 (c) of the Criminal Code) on the grounds that he had thrown Molotov cocktails at a market during a protest held by the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an armed terrorist organisation), which resulted in damage to the market’s windows and an injury of its cashier. Accordingly, the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment, and an additional term of eleven years’ imprisonment. On 24 April 2018 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction. On 31 December 2020 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time and declared the remainder of his complaints including, inter alia , the right to a reasoned judgment inadmissible in a summary fashion for non-compliance with the admissibility criteria. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic courts failed to provide sufficient reasons in their decision convicting him.     QUESTION 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, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decisions to convict him of breaking up the unity of the State and of attempted murder (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no.   19867/12, §§   83 ‑ 84, 11 July 2017)? Did the trial court’s reasoned decision contain an individualised assessment in respect of the applicant?