AKTAȘ AND TARI v. TURKEY and 7 other applications

Comunicate la 19 octombrie 2018 SECȚIA A II-A Reclamația nr. 53848/09 Veysel AKTAȘ și Murat TARI împotriva Turciei și alte 7 reclamații (vezi lista anexată) SUBJECTUL CASEI Reclamațiile se referă în principal la presupusa nedreptate a procedurii penale din cauza restricției sistemice impuse reclamantelor dreptul de acces la un avocat în timpul etapei preliminară a procesului în conformitate cu Legea nr. 3842 și utilizarea ulterioară de către instanță a declarațiilor în absența unui avocat (vezi Salduz împotriva Turciei [GC], nr. 36391/02, CEDO 2008, și Ibrahim și alții împotriva Regatului Unit [GC], nr. 50541/08 și alții, 13 octombrie 2016). Reclamația nr. 53848/09 se referă, de asemenea, la incapacitatea reclamantului de a utiliza dovezile obținute în cadrul procesului în timpul etapei preliminară a anchetei (vezi Decretul din 30 august 1998, Ceylan Özcan împotriva Turciei, c. 30/03, 30/03, 30/03, 30/03, 30/03, 624), și în cazul Ceylan Ceylan Turciei împotriva Turciei, c. 65, respectiv, 30/03, 30/03, 30/03, 30/03, 65, 65, 65, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64,

64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, Cererea nr. 60237/11 se referă, de asemenea, la presupusa absență a avocatului reclamantului în timpul măsurilor de anchetă, cum ar fi reconstrucția evenimentelor (rezumatul evenimentelor) și procedura de identificare (rezumatul evenimentelor) (a se vedea cererea nr. 284/50), precum și la utilizarea declarațiilor luate de alte părți în cursul anchetei (a se vedea cererea nr. 77243/11), precum și la incapacitatea reclamantului de a examina o declarație sau a unui avocat în cursul anchetei (a se vedea cererea nr. 3712/407, precum și declarațiile luate de alte părți în cursul anchetei).

În special, a existat o încălcare a articolului 6 § 3 (c) din Convenție, ca urmare a lipsei asistenței juridice disponibile pentru reclamante în timpul investigației preliminare (a se vedea Salduz împotriva Turciei [GC], nr. 36391/02, CEDO 2008, și Ibrahim și alții împotriva Regatului Unit [GC], nr. 50541/08 și 3 octombrie 2016, ECJ 2016)? ADDITATĂ C-SPECIFICĂ QUESTIONES?

1.A se vedea deciziile CEDO, din 1 august 1998, privind cererea de judecată a Ceylan împotriva Turciei (a se vedea Ceylan împotriva Turciei, nr. 5383/03, cf. § 6233 și cf. § 6235 din CEDO, din 1 iunie 2009)? a fost încălcată dreptul reclamantului la un proces echitabil prevăzut la art. 6 §§ 1 și 3 (d) din Convenție datorită incapacității sale de a examina sau de a-l examina pe reclamantul, și anume pe A.T., care a luat parte la procedura de identificare cu fotografie în timpul etapei de anchetă preliminară și a identificat reclamantul (a se vedea Daștan împotriva Turciei, nr. 37272/08, 10 octombrie 2017)? C. În ceea ce privește reclamantul în cererea nr. 60237/11 1. reclamantul a primit un proces echitabil de către un tribunal independent și imparțial, astfel cum este prevăzut la art. 6 § 1 din Convenție, având în vedere acuzația depusă de procurorul public din Istanbul împotriva avocatului reclamantului al treilea, în urma încălcării depuse de membrii tribunale?

2. A fost oare posibilă o încălcare a articolului 6 §§ 1 și 3 (c) din Convenție din cauza utilizării de către instanța de judecată a declarațiilor co-acuzatilor luate în absența unui avocat (a se vedea Ömer Güner împotriva Turciei, nr. 28338/07, §§ 37-41, 4 septembrie 2018)? 3.A fost reclamantul în măsură să examineze părțile reclamante, și anume H.Ö., E.B., A.S., M.I., R.Y. în procedura introdusă împotriva sa, așa cum este impus de art. 6 §§ 3 (d) din Convenție (a se vedea Daștan , citat mai sus E. În ceea ce privește reclamantul în cererea nr. 394/12 și în cazul în care utilizarea declarațiilor presupuse ale reclamantului în cadrul evenimentelor sus-ului a încălcat dreptul său la un proces echitabil (a se vedea Hakan Çandis Öz, punctul 50, a se vedea actul de judecată din octombrie 2007)? Guvernul este, de asemenea, rugat să prezinte declarațiile preliminar de judecată ale reclamantelor în cererile cu numerele 53848/09, 62977/11, 74553/11,

și 77243/11.APENDIX No. Aplicatie nr. Dosed on Applicant Data nașterii Loc de reședință Reprezentat de 53848/09 18/09/2009 Veysel AKTAȘ 01/01/1973 Istanbul Murat TARI 01/01/1973 Giresun Gülizar TUNCER 36824/11 26/04/2011 Yüksel BEYSÜLEN 05/01/1978 İstanbul Nuran KURTȘ ATAHAN 60237/11 21/07/2011 Tamer TUNCER TamerULU 25/10/1971 Koca Meteeli TUNCER 17/06/1969 İstanbul Nuri KızılIN 29/08/1977 Sever Kırgandı Cesari Gülizar İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İzmir İmirzmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmirz İmir

Communicated on 19 October 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 53848/09 Veysel AKTAȘ and Murat TARI against Turkey and 7 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications mainly concern the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicants’ 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 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, 13 September 2016). Application no. 53848/09 also concerns the use of the evidence obtained under alleged duress during the preliminary investigation stage (see Özcan Çolak v. Turke y, no. 30235/03, §§ 47-50, 6 October 2009). It further relates to the independence and impartiality of the trial court as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Incal v. Turkey , 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 IV, and compare, Ceylan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 68953/01, 30 August 2005). Application no. 36824/11 also concerns independence and impartiality of the trial court as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Incal , cited above, and compare, Ceylan , cited above), and the applicant’s alleged inability to examine or have examined the complainant party, namely A.T., who took part in photo identification procedure during the preliminary investigation stage and identified the applicant (see Daștan v. Turkey , no. 37272/08, 10 October 2017). Application no. 60237/11 also concerns independence and impartiality of the trial court as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given the indictment filed by the Istanbul public prosecutor against the third applicant’s lawyer following the complaint lodged by the members of the trial court’s bench,

and further pertains to the use of the evidence obtained under alleged duress during the preliminary investigation stage (see Özcan Çolak , cited above, §§ 47-50).

It also relates to the alleged absence of the applicants’ lawyer during the investigative measures, such as the reconstruction of the events ( yer gösterme ) and the identification procedure ( teșhis islemleri ) (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010). Application no. 77243/11 also concerns the alleged absence of the applicant’s lawyer during the investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary investigation stage (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman , cited above) and the use by the trial court of the other co ‑ defendants’ statements taken in the absence of a lawyer (see Ömer Güner v. Turkey , no. 28338/07, §§ 37-41, 4 September 2018). It further concerns the applicant’s alleged inability to examine or have examined the complainant parties (see Daștan , cited above).

Application no. 394/12 further pertains to the use of the applicant’s statements taken under alleged duress to convict him (see Özcan Çolak , cited above, §§ 47-50). Application no. 8407/12 also concerns the alleged absence of the applicants’ lawyer during the investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary investigation stage (see Hakan Duman , cited above). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

COMMON QUESTION

Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against themselves, 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 applicants 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)?

ADDITIONAL CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

A. In respect of the applicants in application no. 53848/09 1. Did the use of the evidence obtained under alleged duress during the preliminary investigation stage violate the applicants’ right to a fair hearing (see Özcan Çolak v. Turke y, no. 30235/03, §§ 47-50, 6 October 2009)? 2. Did the applicant receive a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Incal v. Turkey , 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 IV, and compare, Ceylan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 68953/01, 30 August 2005)? B. In respect of the applicant in application no. 36824/11 1. Did the applicant receive a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Incal , cited above, and compare, Ceylan , cited above)?

2. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial provided by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention due to his inability to examine or have examined the complainant party, namely A.T., who took part in photo identification procedure during the preliminary investigation stage and identified the applicant (see Daștan v. Turkey , no. 37272/08, 10 October 2017)? C. In respect of the applicant in application no. 60237/11 1. Did the applicants receive a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given the indictment filed by the Istanbul public prosecutor against the third applicant’s lawyer following the complaint lodged by the members of the trial court’s bench?

2. Did the use of the evidence obtained under alleged duress during the preliminary investigation stage violate the applicants’ right to a fair hearing (see Özcan Çolak , cited above §§ 47-50)? 3. Has there been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the absence of the applicants’ lawyers during the investigative measures, such as the reconstruction of the events ( yer gösterme ) and the identification procedure ( teșhis islemleri ) (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010)? D. In respect of the applicant in application no. 77243/11 1. Has there been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the applicant’s lawyer’s absence during the investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary investigation stage (see mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman , cited above)?

2. Has there been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the use by the trial court of the co-defendants’ statements taken in the absence of a lawyer (see Ömer Güner v. Turkey , no. 28338/07, §§ 37-41, 4 September 2018)? 3. Was the applicant able to examine the complainant parties, namely H.Ö., E.B., A.S., M. I., R.Y. in the proceedings brought against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention (see Daștan , cited above)?

E. In respect of the applicants in application no. and 394/12 Did the use of the applicant’s statements taken under alleged duress violate his right to a fair hearing (see Özcan Çolak , cited above, §§ 47 ‑ 50, 6 October 2009)? F. In respect of the applicant in application no. 8407/12 Has there been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the absence of the applicants’ lawyer during the investigative measures taken in the course of the preliminary investigation stage, in particular the reconstruction of the events ( yer gösterme ) (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman , cited above)?

The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicants’ cases, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, documentary evidence against the applicants and the reasoned judgment of the trial court, the applicants’ and their lawyers’ written submissions both before the trial court and before the Court of Cassation. The Government are further requested to submit the pre-trial statements of the applicants in applications nos. 53848/09, 62977/11, 74553/11, and 77243/11.

APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by 53848/09 18/09/2009 Veysel AKTAȘ 01/01/1973 İstanbul Murat TARI 01/01/1973 Giresun Gülizar TUNCER 36824/11 26/04/2011 Yüksel BEYSÜLEN 05/01/1978 İstanbul Nuran KURTULUȘ ATAHAN 60237/11 21/07/2011 Tamer TUNCER 25/10/1971 Kocaeli Mete TUNCER 17/06/1969 İstanbul Nuri AKALIN 29/08/1977 Kandıra Gülizar TUNCER 62977/11 26/07/2011 Mehmet Zeki DENİZ 01/01/1963 İstanbul Abdulhamit ÇAKAN 74553/11 14/10/2011 Fırat PERVANE 10/07/1979 Diyarbakır Mehmet ERBIL 77243/11 28/11/2011 Kadir AYDIN 26/07/1981 Tekirdağ Nuran KURTULUȘ ATAHAN 394/12 15/12/2011 Hasan SAYAN 01/01/1968 İstanbul Cesim TUSUN 8407/12 30/12/2011 Efendi YALDIZ 01/01/1971 İstanbul Erkan YALDIZ 01/04/1977 İstanbul Kızıl ÖMÜR 28/08/1978 İstanbul Several BALLIKAYA ÇELİK