Published on 22 June 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 22458/24
İsmail GENÇ
against Türkiye
lodged on 10 July 2024
communicated on 1 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his inability to confront and examine absent witnesses and to be present in the courtroom, as well as the absence of an effective review by the Constitutional Court.
On 3 October 2012 a criminal investigation was initiated on the basis of three witness statements and photographic evidence incriminating the applicant as the person who had extorted three civilians.
He was subsequently committed to stand trial before the Hatay Assize Court. During the proceedings, a total of thirty-eight hearings were held between 30 October 2017 and 14 July 2020. At the conclusion of the trial, the applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery, false imprisonment and unlawful possession of hazardous materials and a firearm, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and a judicial fine. The conviction was based mainly on the aforementioned witness statements.
On 7 April 2022 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction with final effect. On 5 March 2024 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint concerning the right to be present in the courtroom inadmissible on the ground that he had failed to raise the relevant arguments before the domestic courts, while declaring the remainder of his complaints concerning the overall fairness of the proceedings, the principle of equality of arms and the right to a reasoned judgment inadmissible as manifestly ill‑founded.
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had not received a fair hearing on account of the trial court’s failure (i) to secure his physical presence in the courtroom, as, despite his requests, he had only been able to participate in the proceedings via videoconference, and (ii) to allow him to confront and examine witnesses who were absent from the trial, and (iii) the Constitutional Court’s failure to conduct a sufficient review of his complaints.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair trial in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular,
i. Was the use of a video link in the present case compatible with the notion of a fair hearing? Did its use pursue a legitimate aim (see Marcello Viola v. Italy, no. 45106/04, §§ 49-62 and 67, ECHR 2006-XI (extracts), and Asciutto v. Italy, no. 35795/02, §§ 57-72, 27 November 2007)?
ii. Was the non-examination of the witnesses at the trial compatible with Article 6 § 3 (d) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015)?
iii. Did the manner in which the Constitutional Court examined the applicant’s complaints concerning the right to examine witnesses and the right to be present in the courtroom deprive the applicant of effective access to the Constitutional Court (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76‑80, 5 April 2018)?