CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 janvier 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10AB3CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#222222 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC83985A0 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#222222 } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       SECOND SECTION Application no. 4524/06 Yılmaz YILDIZ and others against Turkey lodged on 3 January 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicants, Mr Kam i ran Y ı ld ı r ı m, Mr Mehmet Metin Ç ı lg ı n and Mr   Y ı lmaz Y ı ld ı z are Turkish nationals who were born in 1965, 1961 and 1972, respectively. Y ı lmaz Y ı ld ı z lives in Niğde and the others live in Mardin. They are represented before the Court by Mr Öztürk Türkdoğan, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The first applicant, Kam i ran Y ı ld ı r ı m, is a doctor and the branch chairperson of the Health and Social Services Workers’ Union ( Sağl ı k ve Sosyal Hizmet Emek ç ileri Sendikas ı – “the SES”) in Mardin. The second applicant, Mehmet Metin Ç ı lg ı n, is a doctor and also a member of the SES in Mardin. The third applicant, Y ı lmaz Y ı ld ı z, is a health officer and the branch chairperson of the SES in Niğde. On 4 February 2005 several members of the union gathered in front of the Niğde Social Security Institution ( Sosyal Sigortalar Kurumu – “the SSK”) Hospital and Y ı lmaz Y ı ld ı z read out the SES’s press statement to draw attention to the problems which could occur as a consequence of the transfer of the SSK’s hospitals to the Ministry of Health. On 25 February 2005 Kam i ran Y ı ld ı r ı m, Mehmet Metin Ç ı lg ı n and another thirty persons gathered in front of the Mardin Yenişehir SSK Hospital. Afterwards Kam i ran Y ı ld ı r ı m read out the press statement in his capacity as chairman of the Mardin branch of the Union. According to the official reports of 4 February 2005 and 25   February 2005 prepared by the police officers, the two demonstrator groups were warned verbally that their gatherings in hospital yards were illegal and the demonstrators were ordered to disband to protect the public order and safety. The Niğde and Mardin public prosecutors filed bills of indictment against the applicants, charging them with intentionally disobeying the orders issued by authorised bodies with the aim of protecting public order and safety. On 8 June 2005 and 14 July 2005 the Mardin Magistrates’ Court and the Niğde Magistrates’ Court respectively found that Article 32 of Law no.   5326 had been infringed, and sentenced the applicants to a fine of 100   Turkish liras (approximately 50 Euros). The applicants filed objections against the courts’ decisions. On 20 June 2005 and 26 July 2005 the Mardin Assize Court and the Niğde Assize Court respectively dismissed the applicants’ objections. On 23 August 2005 and 11 October 2005 respectively the applicants paid the requested amounts to the relevant tax departments. COMPLAINTS Invoking Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they were sentenced to an administrative fine on the grounds of their union activities, which constituted a breach of their right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression or peaceful assembly or both within the meaning of Articles   10 and 11 of the Convention?