CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mai 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 19 May 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 56670/22 Özlem KURT against Türkiye lodged on 29 November 2022 communicated on 2 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of proceedings against the applicant in which she challenged the fine imposed on her for breaching the Law on the Protection of the Value of the Turkish Lira (Law no.   1567). In particular, the application pertains to an alleged breach of the principle of adversarial proceedings due to the domestic courts’ failure to communicate to the applicant an expert report dated 18 June 2021 on which they relied to dismiss her objections against the fine. The application further pertains to the domestic courts’ failure to properly examine and provide relevant and sufficient reasons regarding the applicant’s defence submissions. 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? In particular, has there been a breach of the principle of adversarial proceedings on account of the non ‑ communication of the expert opinion dated 18 June 2021 to the applicant (see , for general principles, Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, §   306, 26   September 2023; Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §   91, 18   December 2018, and see also Krčmář and Others v. the Czech Republic , no. 35376/97, §§   38-46, 3 March 2000)?   2.     Did the domestic courts discharge their duty to properly examine and provide relevant and sufficient reasons regarding the applicant’s submissions that she could not be held liable, as she was merely a salaried employee at a currency exchange operating without the necessary licence (see, for general principles, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no.   19867/12, §   84, 11   July 2017, and Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey , nos.   29084/07 and 1191/08, §   127, 27 October 2020)?