Communicated on 11 May 2020 Published on 2 June 2020

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 8865/10 Ãœmit ULUÅžAN against Turkey lodged on 19 January 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings owing to the Court of Cassation ’ s refusal to grant the applicant ’ s request for an oral hearing in the determination of his appeal (see Ekbatani v. Sweden , 26 May 1988, Series A no. 134).

It further pertains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention to the applicant ’ s inability to confront co-accused N.G., who had identified him in the investigation stage (see Melnikov v. Russia , no. 23610/03, § 75, 14 January 2010) and the alleged breach of the principle of immediacy owing to the trial court ’ s alleged failure to hear N.G. in person before relying on the evidence he had given in a separate set of criminal proceedings to convict the applicant (see Gökbulut v. Turkey , no. 7459/04 , §§ 51 ‑ 72, 29 March 2016).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Court of Cassation ’ s dismissal of the applicant ’ s request that a hearing be held before it?

2. 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:

a) Was the applicant able to examine N.G. as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? What steps did the domestic courts take to secure the attendance of N.G.?

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

c) Did the statements of N.G. 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 N.G. 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 N.G. at the trial?

3. Has there been a breach of the principle of immediacy owing to the trial court ’ s failure to hear N.G. in person before relying on the statements he had made when convicting the applicant?