Communicated on 14 September 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 3666/11 Hasan ALSAÇ against Turkey lodged on 30 November 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application raises various issues under Article 6 of the Convention. It concerns the alleged lack of reasoning in the first-instance court ’ s judgment convicting the applicant of some of the charges brought against him, the applicant ’ s absence at one of the hearings due to the domestic authorities ’ lack of finances and the non-communication to the applicant of the indictment against him.

The application also concerns the lack of adequate time provided to the applicant to prepare his defence following the introduction of new evidence during the final stages of the trial and the alleged failure of the officially ‑ appointed lawyers to provide effective representation to him.

Finally, it pertains to the non-attendance of the witnesses against the applicant, whose testimonies, obtained long before the proceedings at issue, were read out during the trial.

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention.

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?

( i ) Did the judgment of the Erzurum Assize Court dated 26 March 2009 adequately state the reasons on which it was based ( see Hadjianastassiou v. Greece , 16 December 1992, Series A no. 252, and Boldea v. Romania , no. 19997/02, 15 February 2007)?

(ii) Did the domestic authorities ’ failure to bring the applicant to the hearing dated 13 January 2009 due to lack of finances result in a denial of justice (see, mutatis mutandis , Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, ECHR 2006 ‑ II)?

(iii) Was the applicant informed in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusations against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention? In that connection, besides the indictment dated 9 June 2008, which was communicated to the applicant during the hearing on 25 September 2008, was he served with the other two indictments dated 15 September 1994 and 17 October 1997 respectively, taking into account that the applicant was found guilty of some of the charges brought by them (see, mutatis mutandis , Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999 ‑ II) ?

(iv) Was the applicant afforded adequate time to prepare his defence , as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention having regard to the fact that the Erzurum Assize Court read out the statements of the witnesses against him and assessed new evidence concerning the arms robbery conducted on 8 August 1997 on the last day of the trial, just before it delivered the judgment (see, mutatis mutandis , Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 1) , nos. 29900/96 and 3 others, § 57, ECHR 2001 ‑ VIII, and Miminoshvili v. Russia , no. 20197/03, § 141, 28 June 2011) ?

(v) Did the applicant have the benefit of a practical and effective defence and appropriate legal assistance as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) (see Goddi v. Italy , 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76)? Was the alleged failure of the officially-appointed lawyers to provide effective representation to the applicant manifest or sufficiently brought to the attention of the domestic authorities ( Daud v. Portugal , 21 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ II)?

(vi) Was the applicant given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question the witnesses against him as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? In this connection, did the domestic court take the necessary steps so as to enable him to cross-examine the witnesses, whose statements had been taken by the Çayırlı Public Prosecutor in 1997 ( Al ‑ Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no . 9154/10, ECHR 2015)?

2. The Government are further invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the criminal proceedings against the applicant, including but not limited to the minutes of all interviews conducted during the preliminary investigation stage, the indictments against the applicant, the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgment of the trial court, all the evidence against the applicant and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyers throughout the proceedings.