Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

KARAKOÇ v. TURKEY and 1 other application

Doc ref: 40198/11;47696/11 • ECHR ID: 001-194936

Document date: July 2, 2019

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 4

KARAKOÇ v. TURKEY and 1 other application

Doc ref: 40198/11;47696/11 • ECHR ID: 001-194936

Document date: July 2, 2019

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 2 July 2019

SECOND SECTION

Applications nos. 40198/11 and 47696/11 Remzi KARAKOÇ against Turkey and Yusuf KÜÇÜKTEPE against Turkey lodged on 24 April 2011 and 4 April 2011 respectively

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants, two Turkish citizens, were tried and convicted by the domestic courts in Turkey of murdering another Turkish citizen in Germany.

The applications concern the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicants on account of their inability to examine certain witnesses, who had only been heard during the criminal investigation carried out by the German authorities in Germany, 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, and see further Štulíř v. the Czech Republic , no. 36705/12, §§ 53-74, 12 January 2017 ).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Were the applicants able to examine the witnesses as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? What steps did the domestic courts take to secure the attendance of the witnesses?

(b) Was 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 ’ judgments?

(c) Did the statements of the witnesses serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicants ’ conviction?

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

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

LIST OF APPLICATIONS

Application number

Applicant ’ s Name

Birth date

Place of residence

Nationality

Represented by

40198/11

Remzi KARAKOÇ

11/06/1970 Bingöl

German

Ulrich SOMMER

47696/11

Yusuf KÜÇÜKTEPE

01/01/1972 Antalya

Turkish

Abbas Tevfik PİRİMOĞLU

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846