Communicated on 13 December 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 27300/12
Kenan TANDOĞAN
against Turkey
lodged on 16 April 2012
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicant’s 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 obtained in the absence of a lawyer and allegedly under duress to convict him (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, 13 September 2016; Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, 9 November 2018, and Özcan Çolak v. Turkey, no. 30235/03, 6 October 2009).
The application further pertains to the use of the statements obtained from F.G. a certain co-defendant in the absence of a lawyer and allegedly under duress during the preliminary investigation stage (see Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, 25 April 2013; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; and compare Dominka v. Slovakia, (dec.) no. 14630/12, §§ 28-36, 3 April 2018).
Certain information related to the applicant’s arrest and the subsequent criminal proceedings brought against him may be found in Tandoğan v. Turkey, no. 9244/02, 20 September 2007).
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against himself, 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 applicant during the preliminary investigation and the subsequent use by the trial court of statements obtained allegedly under duress and in the absence of a lawyer to convict him (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, 13 September 2016; Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, 9 November 2018, and Özcan Çolak v. Turkey, no. 30235/03, §§ 47-50, 6 October 2009)?
2. Have the requirements of a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention been satisfied as regards the admission into evidence of the co-defendant F.G.’s statements taken in the absence of a lawyer and allegedly under duress (see Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, 25 April 2013; Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; and compare Dominka v. Slovakia, (dec.) no. 14630/12, §§ 28-36, 3 April 2018)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy