Communicated on 24 October 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 45768/12 Sinan ERASLAN against Turkey lodged on 7 May 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant was charged with establishing and managing an organisation for the purposes of committing offences, and with committing theft by using electronic information systems. He was already in prison during the criminal proceedings against him, as he had been convicted of another crime. The applicant was not brought before the trial court from the prison by the authorities for the majority of the hearings during the criminal proceedings against him. At the end, the trial court found the applicant guilty as charged relying on, inter alia the reports concerning telephone tapping of the applicant and the co-accused, and on the seizure of telephones, SIM cards, computers, swiping machines, machines capable of producing fake credit and debit cards from the applicant and co-accused.

The application mainly concerns the applicant ’ s right to a fair trial on account of the alleged violations of his right to defend himself in person before the trial court under Article 6 § 3 (c), as the applicant alleges that his absence during the majority of the hearings at the trial court prevented hi m from defending himself effectively.

The application further concerns the domestic authorities ’ alleged failure to provide the applicant with adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention, as the applicant complains that he was not served with the entire indictment against him while in prison.

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 this connection:

Did the applicant waive his right to be present before the trial court pursuant to Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? In the same vein, was the applicant able to defend himself, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention before the trial court? In particular, was the applicant ’ s absence from the hearings at the trial court had prevented him from defending himself effectively (see Kahraman v. Turkey , no. 42104/02 , §§ 27 ‑ 32, 26 April 2007, and Seyithan Demir v. Turkey , no. 25381/02 , §§ 37 ‑ 44, 28 July 2009)?