Communicated on 8 June 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 10613/10 Ekrem CAN and O thers against Turkey lodged on 3 February 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the absence of a lawyer while the applicants gave their statements before the police and the validity of the waiver of their right to legal assistance.

It also raises an issue with regard to the applicants ’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly, having regard to their arrest and eventual conviction following a gathering they had taken part in, during which they blocked a corridor of the Istanbul Courthouse, spread a banner, distributed leaflets and chanted slogans.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicants during their detention in police custody (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)? In this connection, could they be considered to have waived their right to legal assistance in an unequivocal manner before their interview by the police at the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Directorate of Security (see Yoldaş v. Turkey , no. 27503/04 , 23 February 2010)?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the police intervention at the gathering on 18 November 2003 and the applicants ’ subsequent conviction for obstructing the functioning of public service ?

If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?

In particular, taking into account that the applicants opened a banner and distributed leaflets during the demonstration, did the measure complained of interfere with their freedom of peaceful assembly, rather than their right to freedom of expression (see Karademirci and Others v. Turkey , nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97, § 26, ECHR 2005 ‑ I , and Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary , nos. 26005/08 and 26160/08, § 39, 12 June 2012)?

3. The Government are further invited to submit copies of all the relevant do c uments concerning the demonstration held by the applicants and the criminal proceedings against them, including but not limited to the minutes of all interviews conducted during the preliminary investigation stage, the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgments of the trial court, the evidence against the applicants and the written submissions of the applicants and their lawyers throughout the proceedings.

Appendix