Communicated on 22 November 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 78510/11 Yasemin OKUYUCU against Turkey lodged on 11 November 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application mainly concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicant ’ s 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 statements obtained allegedly under duress and in the absence of a lawyer to convict her (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, 13 September 2016; and Özcan Çolak v. Turkey , no . 30235/03, §§ 47-50, 6 October 2009 ).

The application also involves the applicant ’ s complaint that she was not informed of the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer before her statements were taken by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge (see, Titarenko v. Ukraine , no. 31720/02, §§ 87-88, 20 September 2012, and Navone and Others v. Monaco , nos. 62880/11 and 2 others, 24 October 2013) .

It also concerns the applicant ’ s alleged inability to benefit from legal assistance following the withdrawal of her lawyer as noted by the trial court in its hearing held at 18 October 2007.

The application further pertains to the alleged absence of the applicant ’ s lawyer during the investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary investigation stage and the use of the statements obtained f rom the co-defendants in the absence of a lawyer and under alleged duress during the preliminary investigation stage ( see, in respect of the applicant Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010 and in respect of the co-defendants Erkapic v. Croatia , no. 51198/08, 25 April 2013; Ömer Güner v. Turkey , no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; and compare Dominka v. Slovakia , ( dec. ) no. 14630/12, §§ 28-36, 3 April 2018) ).

The Court has already found both a substantive and a procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the co-defendant Metin Dikme in Dikme v. Turkey (no. 20869/92, ECHR 2000 ‑ VIII).

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against herself, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during the preliminary investigation and the subsequent use by the trial court of statements obtained allegedly under duress and in the absence of a lawyer to convict her (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, 13 September 2016; and Özcan Çolak v. Turkey , no . 30235/03, §§ 47-50, 6 October 2009 )?

2. When did the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention start applying to the applicant in the instant case? Was the applicant informed of her basic rights such as the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer before her statements were taken by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge (see, mutatis mutandis , Titarenko v. Ukraine , no. 31720/02, §§ 87 ‑ 88, 20 September 2012, and Navone and Others v. Monaco , nos. 62880/11 and 2 others, 24 October 2013)?

3. Did the applicant have the benefit of a practical and effective defence and appropriate legal assistance as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention following the hearing held on 18 October 2007? ( see Quaranta v. Switzerland , 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205) ? In that connection, was the trial court required under Article 150 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to assign an officially-appointed lawyer to represent the applicant?

4. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the absence of the applicant ’ s lawyer during the investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary investigation (see İbrahim Öztürk v. Turkey , no. 16500/04, §§48-9, 17 February 2009; Karadağ v. Turkey , no. 12976/05, §§46-7, 29 June 2010; and Navone and others , cited above, §78 )?

5. Have the requirements of a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention been satisfied as regards the admission into evidence of the incriminating statements which other co-defendants had given to the police under alleged duress and in the absence of a lawyer (see Dikme v. Turkey , no. 20869/92, ECHR 2000 ‑ VIII; Erkapic v. Croatia , no. 51198/08, 25 April 2013; Ömer Güner v. Turkey , no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; and compare Dominka v. Slovakia , ( dec. ) no. 14630/12, §§ 28-36, 3 April 2018)?

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, documentary evidence against the applicant and the reasoned judgment of the trial court, the applicant ’ s and her lawyer ’ s written submissions both before the trial court and before the Court of Cassation.