Communicated on 25 March 2019<\/p>\n
SECOND SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 58089\/11
\nTurgay ULU
\nagainst Turkey
\nlodged on 9 September 2011<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE<\/p>\n
The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicant\u2019s right of access to a lawyer during the pre-trial stage pursuant to Law no. 3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of the statements taken in the absence of a lawyer (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391\/02, ECHR 2008; Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541\/08 and 3\u00a0others, 13\u00a0September 2016; and Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409\/10<\/a>, 9\u00a0November 2018)<\/p>\n It further pertains to the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his alleged inability to examine certain witnesses, who had identified him from his photographs during the preliminary criminal proceedings, in person before the trial court (see, for general principles, Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the\u00a0United\u00a0Kingdom [GC], nos.\u00a026766\/05 and 22228\/06, ECHR 2011 as refined in Schatschaschwili v.\u00a0Germany [GC], no. 9154\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 107 and 118, ECHR\u00a02015).<\/p>\n QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the principles adopted by the Grand Chamber in the case of Ibrahim and Others v.\u00a0the\u00a0United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541\/08 and 3 others, 13\u00a0September 2016) and Beuze v. Belgium ([GC], no.\u00a071409\/10<\/a>, 9 November 2018), has there been a breach of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?<\/p>\n In that connection, were there any compelling reasons to restrict the applicant\u2019s right of access to a lawyer? If so, had they been temporary and based on an individual assessment of the particular circumstances of the case?<\/p>\n \u2013\u00a0\u00a0If answered in the affirmative, could the criminal proceedings as a whole against the applicant be considered as fair within the meaning of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? In particular, which of the relevant procedural safeguards (some of which listed non-exhaustively in \u00a7 274 of Ibrahim and Others) were taken into account by the domestic courts in order to assess the impact of procedural shortcomings at the pre-trial stage on the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings?<\/p>\n \u2013\u00a0\u00a0If answered in the negative, were there any exceptional circumstances in the present case, to demonstrate whether the absence of access to legal advice during the applicant\u2019s police custody had not caused irretrievable prejudice to the overall fairness of the trial?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Was the applicant able to examine the witnesses that had identified him from his photographs during the preliminary criminal proceedings against him as required by Article 6 \u00a73 (d) of the Convention? If not,<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0What steps did the domestic courts take to secure the attendance of the witnesses against him?<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Was there a good reason for the non-attendance of the witnesses at the trial? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts\u2019 judgments?<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0Did the statements of the witnesses serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant\u2019s conviction?<\/p>\n d)\u00a0\u00a0Did the domestic courts\u2019 judgments indicate that they had approached the statements given by the witnesses with any specific caution?<\/p>\n (e)\u00a0\u00a0Did the domestic courts provide the applicant with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine the witnesses at the trial?<\/p>\n The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant\u2019s case, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgment of the trial court, documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.<\/p>\n