CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 janvier 2025

.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 } Published on 10 February 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35850/20 Ayşegül Şeymanur YİĞİT against Türkiye lodged on 9 July 2020 communicated on 22 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns, under Article 6 §§   1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, an alleged breach of the applicant’s right to be present and to defend herself effectively at the trial, which took place before the Muğla Criminal Court of First Instance (“the trial court”), whereas her statements were taken by the Istanbul Criminal Court of First Instance pursuant to letters issued by the trial court. The application further pertains, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, to the applicant’s alleged inability to examine witnesses in person before the trial court and to the question whether the conduct of the trial, including the taking and examination of witness evidence, respected the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings. The applicant complains, under Article 6 §§   1 and 3   (d) of the Convention, that she did not have a fair hearing due to the trial court’s failure to take evidence from her in person and to hear the witnesses in her presence and to enable her to comment on their statements or to put questions to them. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ünsal v. Turkey , no.   24632/02, §§   26-33, 20   February 2007)?   (a)     In that connection, has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to be present and to defend herself effectively, as required by Article   6 §§   1 and   3   (c) of the Convention? At what point did the domestic courts inform the applicant of her right to be present and to give evidence before the Muğla Criminal Court of First Instance?   (b)     Did the trial court respect the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings in the criminal proceedings against the applicant in respect of, among other things, the taking and examination of witness evidence?   2.     Was the applicant able to examine the witness(es) against her, as required by Article   6 §§   1 and 3   (d) of the Convention (see, for general principles, Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§   100-31, ECHR 2015, and Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey , no. 74845/12, §§   50-72, 30   July 2019)?