Here’s a breakdown of the Aykaç v. Türkiye decision:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found that Türkiye violated the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention. This violation stemmed from two key issues: the applicant was denied access to a lawyer during police custody, and statements obtained without legal assistance were used against him. Additionally, the applicant was unable to properly examine witnesses against him, as their statements were taken remotely without sufficient justification. The Court restored the application after initially striking it out based on a unilateral declaration by the Turkish government acknowledging the violation, because Turkish courts subsequently rejected the applicant’s request to reopen the criminal proceedings, rendering the government’s commitment ineffective. The Court emphasized that domestic courts’ decisions rejecting the applicant’s reopening request based on a manifest factual or legal error, resulting in a denial of justice which the Constitutional Court failed to address.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets the stage, explaining the application concerns alleged unfair criminal proceedings against the applicant.
* **The Facts:** Details the applicant’s arrest, police custody, statements made without a lawyer, and the subsequent criminal proceedings against him, including the charges, evidence used, and court decisions.
* **Striking out of the application from the list of cases on the basis of the Government’s Unilateral Declaration:** Describes the government’s initial acknowledgment of a violation and the Court’s initial decision to strike out the case based on that declaration.
* **Subsequent Developments:** Explains the applicant’s attempts to reopen the case in Turkish courts, their rejection, and the Constitutional Court’s decision.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Outlines the Turkish laws regarding access to a lawyer at the time of the applicant’s arrest.
* **The Law:** This section contains the Court’s legal analysis and findings, including:
* **Preliminary Remarks:** Discusses the implications of the government’s unilateral declaration and the duty of domestic courts to act in accordance with it.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c):** Focuses on the denial of legal assistance and its impact on the fairness of the trial.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d):** Addresses the issue of the applicant’s inability to examine witnesses properly.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Deals with just satisfaction (compensation) for the applicant.
* **Decision:** States the Court’s final decision, including the finding of violations and the award of damages.
**Changes Compared to Previous Versions:**
The key change is the restoration of the application to the Court’s list of cases after it had been struck out based on the Turkish government’s unilateral declaration. This restoration was triggered by the Turkish courts’ failure to reopen the criminal proceedings, despite the government’s acknowledgment of a violation and the existence of domestic law that should have allowed for reopening.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Right to Legal Assistance:** The decision reinforces the importance of access to a lawyer during police custody and the consequences of using statements obtained without legal assistance in criminal proceedings.
* **Examination of Witnesses:** The decision highlights the right of the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against them and sets out the criteria for using the evidence of absent witnesses.
* **Unilateral Declarations:** The decision clarifies the obligations of domestic courts when the government makes a unilateral declaration acknowledging a violation of the Convention.
* **Denial of Justice:** The Court found that the domestic courts’ decisions rejecting the applicant’s reopening request based on a manifest factual or legal error, resulting in a denial of justice which the Constitutional Court failed to address.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it underscores the importance of ensuring fair trial rights, including access to legal assistance and the ability to examine witnesses, even in complex cases. It also highlights the need for domestic courts to uphold commitments made by the government in international legal proceedings.
