Communicated on 11 July 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 33812/11 Evren KÖKSAL against Turkey lodged on 14 April 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant, a former military officer who had been dismissed from the armed forces, was tried and eventually sentenced to ten months ’ imprisonment by the General Staff Court for having infringed the military regulations on leave.

The application concerns the independence and impartiality of the General Staff Court, taking account of the fact that the applicant was no longer a member of the armed forces at the time the criminal proceedings were instituted against him.

It also raises issues with regard to the domestic authorities ’ failure to provide the applicant with adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and the lack of legal assistance available to him during the course of the criminal proceedings.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

i. In particular, was the General Staff Court, which dealt with the applicant ’ s case, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

In that connection, could the applicant be considered as a civilian tried by a military court, taking into account that he had been dismissed from the army prior to the institution of the criminal proceedings against him for an offence he had conducted while he was still military personnel?

If so, could the applicant ’ s doubts about the independence and impartiality of that court, comprising judges belonging to the army which could be identified with a party to the proceedings, be regarded as objectively justified (see Ergin v. Turkey (no. 6) , no. 47533/99, ECHR 2006 ‑ VI ( extracts ) ? Moreover, were there compelling reasons on a clear and foreseeable legal basis justifying the trial of the applicant by a military court and were these reasons substantiated in the present case (see Satık v. Turkey (no. 2) , no. 60999/00, 8 July 2008)?

ii. Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence , as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention, having regard to the fact that the General Staff Court held a hearing and convicted him on the same day the General Staff Military Prosecutor issued the indictment?

iii. Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?

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 indictment of the General Staff Military Prosecutor, the minutes the hearing held on 15 January 2009, the reasoned judgment of the General Staff Court, the decision of the Military Court of Cassation and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.