Communicated on 10 September 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 59796/10 Hüseyin UZUNDAĞ and others against Turkey lodged on 29 August 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants were detained in TekirdaÄŸ prison at the time of the application. They are represented before the Court by Ms G. Altay, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

On 10 November 2002, Hüseyin Uzundağ , Baysal Demirhan and Caner Uluç , on 16 November 2002 Sinan Gülüm , on 10 May 2003 Cihan Kahraman and on 25 May 2003 Coşkun Akdeniz were arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation . They were taken to the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate.

On 12 November 2002 Hüseyin Uzundağ , Baysal Demirhan and Caner Uluç , on 19 November 2002 Sinan Gülüm , on 13 May 2002 Cihan Kahraman and on 27 May 2003 Coşkun Akdeniz were respectively questioned by police in the absence of a lawyer. Following their police questioning the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor where they gave statements without legal assistance. The applicants retracted their statements given to the police and the public prosecutor when they were brought before the investigating judge and maintained that they were given under duress.

On 14 November 2002, the investigating judge remanded in custody Hüseyin Uzundağ , Baysal Demirhan and Caner Uluç , on 20 November 2002 Sinan Gülüm , on 13 May 2003 Cihan Kahraman and on 28 May 2003 Coşkun Akdeniz having regard to the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence.

On 26 December 2002 and 22 May 2003 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed indictments charging Hüseyin Uzundağ , Baysal Demirhan and Caner Uluç and Sinan Gülüm . On 3 June 2003 the Public Prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed an indictment charging Coşkun Akdeniz with undermining the constitutional order of the State under Article 146 of the now defunct Criminal Code, Law no. 765. On 2 October 2003, the proceedings against Coskun Akdeniz that commenced before the Ankara State Security Court were subsequently joined with the criminal proceedings against other applicants that were pending before the Istanbul State Security Court.

Whilst the proceedings were pending, State Security Courts were abolished in accordance with Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004. Therefore, the Istanbul Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case.

The Istanbul Assize Court held twenty-five hearings before issuing its judgment. According to the hearing minutes the lawyers assigned by the Bar Association to assist Baysal Demirhan and CoÅŸkun Akdeniz failed to attend at least half of the hearings.

On 24 March 2009 the Istanbul Assize Court found the applicants guilty as charged. On 20 January 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment with one minor technical amendment ( düzelterek onama ).

COMPLAINTS

The applicants maintain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were convicted on the basis of unlawful evidence in that the domestic court relied on their statements which had been taken under duress. They further submit under Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were denied legal assistance during their police custody and before the public prosecutor (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

a. 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 use of their statements, taken in the absence of a lawyer and allegedly under duress (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 45-63, ECHR 2008, and Özcan Çolak v. Turkey , no. 30235/03, §§ 47-50, 6 October 2009)?

b. Concerning Baysal Demirhan and Coşkun Akdeniz , did the alleged lack of legal assistance during their trial violate their right to free legal assistance under Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( see Kahraman v. Turkey , no 42104/02, § 35-37, 26 April 2007 ) ?

APPENDIX

\* MERGEFORMAT ITMarkAppendix DO NOT DELETE [A1]

[A1] 1 ITMarkAppendix DO NOT DELETE