KAYA v. TURKEY
Doc ref: 45629/09 • ECHR ID: 001-176195
Document date: July 12, 2017
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 5
Communicated on 12 July 2017
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 45629/09 Ä°sa KAYA against Turkey lodged on 10 August 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application 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 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 applicant of his basic rights prior to those investigative measures (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010).
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against himself, 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 (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)?
2. Has there been a breach of Art icle 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the absence of the applicant ’ s lawyer during most, if not all, investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary criminal investigation, and the alleged failure to inform the applicant of his basic rights prior to those investigative measures (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010) ?
- 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, the reasoned judgment(s) of the trial court, documentary evidence against the applicants, and the written submissions of the applicants and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.