Published on 28 June 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 10178/18 Özgür TURAN against Turkey lodged on 25 January 2018 c ommunicated on 10 June 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application mainly concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant due to lack of sufficient reasons provided by the domestic courts in their judgments, by which the applicant was convicted under Article 220 § 6 and Article 314 of the Criminal Code as well as under section 7 (2) of Law no. 3713 (see Vetrenko v. Moldova , no . 36552/02 , § 55, 18 May 2010; Ajdarić v. Croatia , no. 20883/09 , § 51, 13 December 2011 ; and Rostomashvili v. Georgia , no. 13185/07 , § 59, 8 November 2018).

The application further pertains to the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his alleged inability to examine the complainants (the two police officers) in person before the trial court (see for general principles Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06 , ECHR 2011 as refined in Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10 , §§ 107 and 118, ECHR 2015; see also Vladimir Romanov v. Russia , no. 41461/02 , § 59, 24 July 2008).

Lastly, it concerns the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s conviction and imprisonment for membership of an illegal organisation under Article 220 § 6 and Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09 , § 79, ECHR 2013) .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were sufficient reasons given for the applicant ’ s conviction?

2. Was the applicant able to examine the complainants against him as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? If not,

(a) What steps did the domestic courts take to secure the attendance of the complainants against him?

(b) Was there a good reason for the non-attendance of the complainants at the trial? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts ’ judgments?

(c) Did the statements of the complainants serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant ’ s conviction?

(d) Did the domestic courts ’ judgments indicate that they had approached the statements given by the complainants with any specific caution?

(e) Did the domestic courts provide the applicant with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine the complainants at the trial?

3. Having regard to the wording of Article 220 § 6 of the Criminal Code, the decisions of the Court of Cassation concerning Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 100 of the Opinion on Articles 216, 299, 301 and 314 of the Penal Code of Turkey of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) (CDL-AD(2016)002)) and the decision of the Plenary Decision of the Court of Cassation (Criminal Divisions) of 4 March 2008 (Case no. 2007/9-282, Decision no. 2008/44 ), has there been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention in the present case (see Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09 , § 79, ECHR 2013)?

The Government 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, the reasoned judgments of the trial courts, the judgments of the Court Cassation, documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.