CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2026

.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 9 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 54780/20 Adnan HAMMADE against Türkiye lodged on 27 November 2020 communicated on 22 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, a Syrian national, on account of the domestic courts’ failure to deliver a reasoned judgment. On 21 November 2017 the Bilecik Assize Court held the first and only hearing in the criminal proceedings against the applicant, in which the applicant participated via the SEGBİS ( Ses ve Görüntü Bilişim Sistemi – Audio and Visual Information System) with the assistance of an interpreter. At the conclusion of the hearing, he was convicted under Article   314   §   2 of the Criminal Code for being a member of a terrorist organisation, namely the YPG (the Kurdish People’s Defence Units movement) and sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment. On 9 May 2019 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. The applicant subsequently lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, alleging, among other things, a violation of his right to a reasoned judgment. On 26 May 2020 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded by way of a summary decision. Before the Court, the applicant invoked Article 6 of the Convention and complained that neither the trial court, the appeal court, nor the Court of Cassation provided sufficient reasoning for his conviction, as they failed to address any of his defence submissions. QUESTIONS 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 (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (No. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83 and   84, 11   July 2017)?   In particular, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decision to convict him of membership of an armed terrorist organisation under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code? In the same vein, having regard to the decisions of the Court of Cassation concerning Article   314 of the Criminal Code (compare paragraph 100 of the Opinion   No.   831/2015 on Articles 216, 299, 301 and 314 of the Penal Code of Turkey of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (CDL ‑ AD(2016)002) adopted on 11/12 March 2016), did the domestic courts duly consider the significant aspects of the criminal case directed against him (see Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, §   91, ECHR 2010; and Tchankotadze v. Georgia , no.   15256/05, §§ 102-03 and 108, 21   June 2016)?   Furthermore, did the domestic courts establish the relevant facts forming the basis of the applicant’s conviction after a proper examination of his submissions, arguments and the evidence adduced? Particularly, did they respond to the applicant’s specific arguments (see Tchankotadze , cited above, § 103, and Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey , nos. 29084/07 and   1191/08, §§   127-28 and   191, 27 October 2020)?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case, including, but not limited to, the minutes of all the hearings, statements of the applicant, the evidence against him, and the written submissions submitted by him throughout the proceedings. The Government are further invited to submit the translation of the relevant pages of the reasoned judgment of the Bilecik Assize Court (2017/296 E. 2017/243   K.) dated 21 November 2017.