KOHEN v. TURKEY and 2 other applications (European Court of Human Rights)

Last Updated on May 26, 2019 by LawEuro

Communicated on 3 April 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 66614/10
Cemil KOHEN against Turkey
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications concern the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings under which the applicants were convicted as a result of the use by the trial court of evidence allegedly obtained in the absence of a lawyer from certain other co-defendants (see Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, 25 April 2013; ÖmerGüner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; and compare Dominka v. Slovakia, (dec.) no. 14630/12, §§ 28-36, 3 April 2018).

They further pertain to the principle of equality of arms as regards the taking and examining of expert reports at the trial stage (see Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, §§161-6, 11 December 2008).

Lastly, they also concern the complaint under Article 6 §§1 and 3 (b) of the Convention concerning the trial court’s alleged failure to specify the documents on the basis of which it asked the applicants to make additional defence submissions considering that they might be convicted of certain offences on multiple counts.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1.  Did the applicants have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the use of evidence obtained by G.Ç. and S.K. allegedly through ill-treatment and in the absence of a lawyer to convict the applicants prejudice the overall fairness against the applicants (see Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, 25 April 2013; ÖmerGüner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; and compare Dominka v. Slovakia, (dec.) no. 14630/12, §§ 28-36, 3 April 2018)?

2.  Was the principle of equality of arms respected in relation to the taking and examining of expert reports at the trial stage (see Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, §§161-6, 11 December 2008)?

3.  Were the applicants given sufficient time and necessary facilities to prepare their defence submissions in the light of the alleged failure of the trial court to specify the documents on the basis of which it asked the defendants to make additional defence submissions towards the end of the trial?

The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicants’ cases, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgments of the trial courts, the evidence listed therein, and the written submissions of the applicants and their lawyer throughout the proceedings.

APPENDIX