CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 novembre 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 20 November 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35054/22 Veysi GÖRGEL against Türkiye lodged on 29 June 2022 communicated on 2 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his inability to examine witness B.T. 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; Ürek and Ürek v.   Turkey , no.   74845/12, 30 July 2019, and Süleyman v. Turkey no.   59453/10, 17   November 2020). The application further concerns the Constitutional Court’s alleged failure to examine that complaint. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the applicant complains of a breach of his right to a fair trial. 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)     Was the applicant able to examine the witness against him (namely, B.T.), as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (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; Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey , no. 74845/12, 30 July 2019, and Süleyman v. Turkey , no. 59453/10, 17 November 2020)? b)     Did the Constitutional Court duly examine the applicant’s complaint concerning his alleged inability to hear evidence from B.T. in person 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.