CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 June 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 16054/23 Mustafa AKGÜN against Türkiye lodged on 13 April 2023 communicated on 19 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings in which the applicant challenged a traffic fine imposed on him. The applicant alleges that the domestic courts failed to properly address and provide reasons regarding a blood test report which, he claimed, was decisive for the outcome of the case. The applicant’s driving licence was suspended for two years for drunk driving, and he was fined 1,256 Turkish liras. The police report, which served as the basis for the fine, indicated that his blood alcohol level was 53   mg/dl, based on an on-the-spot test carried out by the officers (above the legal limit of 50 mg/dl). The applicant subsequently rushed to a state hospital, where a blood alcohol test showed his level to be below 10 mg/dl. The applicant lodged an appeal against the fine, relying on the aforementioned medical report, before the Magistrates’ Court. The court communicated his appeal to the Istanbul Security Directorate, which responded that no assessment of the decrease in blood alcohol level could be made, as the Magistrates’ Court had not included the blood test report in the case file. The Magistrates’ Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicant’s claims were unsubstantiated due to the absence of supporting documents. This decision was upheld on appeal, and the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s individual application inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, on the grounds that it constituted a fourth-instance matter and was unsubstantiated. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, (i)     Were the domestic courts’ decisions dealing with the applicant’s objections arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable due to their alleged failure to address the blood test report obtained by the applicant approximately forty-five minutes after his encounter with the police, which indicated that his blood alcohol level was below the legal limit (see Dulaurans v.   France , no.   34553/97, §§   33-39, 21   March 2000, and Moreira Ferreira v.   Portugal   (No.   2) [GC], no.   19867/12, §   83, 11 July 2017)? (ii)     Did the domestic courts discharge their duty to properly examine and provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s defence submissions (see, for general principles, Moreira Ferreira (No.   2) , cited above, §   84, and Ayetullah Ay v.   Turkey , nos.   29084/07 and 1191/08, §   127, 27   October 2020)?   The parties 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, documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.