Communicated on 27 August 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 53848/07 Fikret KARAHAN against Turkey lodged on 26 November 2007

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged prejudice to the applicant ’ s right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (b) due to alleged non-communication of the reasoned judgment of the trial court to his lawyer. It further concerns the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of lack of an oral hearing before the Court of Cassation despite the applicant ’ s request in that regard.

Lastly, the application also concerns the allegation concerning the applicant ’ s inability to examine or have examined the witnesses during the criminal proceedings under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no . 9154/10, §§ 100-131, ECHR 2015).

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:

(a) Was the reasoned judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court of 18 October 2006 served on the applicant ’ s lawyer as required by Article 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? If not, was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? Were the applicant ’ s defence rights unduly affected by the non-notification of the reasoned judgment of the trial court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Baucher v. France , no. 53640/00, §§ 46 ‑ 51, 24 July 2007, and Zoon v. the Netherlands , no. 29202/95, §§ 39 ‑ 51, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII ) ?

(b) Did the lack of an oral hearing before the Court of Cassation prejudice the fairness of the trial against the applicant (see, for instance, Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, §§ 58-67, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII, and Tierce and Others v. San Marino , nos. 24954/94 and 2 others, §§ 92-102 , ECHR 2000 ‑ IX) ?

(c) Was the applicant able to examine the witnesses against him as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? If not, has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right to a fair trial provided by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention due to their inability to examine or have examined the witnesses (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10 , §§ 100 ‑ 131, ECHR 2015 ) ?

The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant ’ s case, including but not limited to the the document showing the notification of the reasoned judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court of 18 October 2006, the Principal Public Prosecutor ’ s opinion, minutes of all the hearings, documentary evidence against the applicant and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.