Communicated on 19 October 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 6337/10 Gamze EROÄžLU and Mehmet AKDEMIR against Turkey lodged on 22 January 2009

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicants ’ 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 those statements taken in the absence of a lawyer ( see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016 ). It further pertains to the alleged failure to inform the applicants of his basic rights prior to those investigative measures (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010), and to the allegation concerning the applicants ’ inability to examine or have examined the witnesses during the criminal proceedings (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-131, ECHR 2015).

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against themselves, 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 applicants during the preliminary investigation (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016, and Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008)?

2. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the absence of the applicants ’ lawyer during most, if not all, investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary criminal investigation, and the alleged failure to inform the applicants of their basic rights prior to those investigative measures (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010)?

3. Were the applicants able to examine the witnesses against them and have examined those on their behalf as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? If not, has there been a breach of the applicants ’ 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 applicants ’ case, including but not limited to the applicants ’ statements, the minutes of all the hearings, the documentary evidence against the applicants, t he police statements of Gülsüm Yıldız, Mert Yamaç, Ayten Öztürk, Yüksel Doğan, Ayfer Güler, Emine Karaçay, Erhan Özbilge , Muharrem Canikli, Günay Eren, Mesut Sevimli, Nihat Palabıyık, the statements of Yıldız Keskin, and the written submissions of the applicants and their lawyers throughout the proceedings.

APPENDIX