Communicated on 26 June 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 25148/07 Mehmet Emin EKINCI against Turkey lodged on 5 June 2007

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant at the hands of the police, the validity of his waiver of his right to have access to a lawyer when giving statements to the police (see YoldaÅŸ v. Turkey , no. 27503/04 , 23 February 2010, and Simeonovi v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 21980/04, 12 May 2017 ) and his right to be informed of his procedural rights before the reconstruction of events while in custody ( see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03 , 23 March 2010)

I t further pertains to the admissibility and the subsequent use by the criminal courts of the evidence obtained during the investigation stage to secure the applicant ’ s conviction. The applicant complains of a violation of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) of the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment while he was in police custody, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. 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?

( a) H as 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 ? In particular, could the applicant be considered to have waived his right to legal assistance in the circumstances of the instant case (see Yoldaş v. Turkey , no. 27503/04 , 23 February 2010, and Simeonovi v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 21980/04, 12 May 2017 ) ?

( b) Has there been a breach of Art icle 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention; as a result of the alleged failure to inform the applicant of his basic rights prior to the reconstruction of events during which he had made incriminatory statements that were allegedly used to secure his conviction (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03 , 23 March 2010) ?

( c) Were there any procedural safeguards in place with regard to the alleged procedural failings at the pre-trial stage? Did the trial court examine the admissibility of the evidence before going on to examine the merits of the case? To what extent did the national courts respect Article 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for a prohibition to use the police statements taken in the absence of a lawyer in case they have not been confirmed before a judge or a court?