CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s3F717125 { font-family:Arial; color:#339966; display:none }       SECOND SECTION Application no. 21094/11 Çilem İLASLAN against Turkey lodged on 12 January 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS     The applicant, Ms Çilem İlaslan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Istanbul. She is represented before the Court by Mrs G.   Altay, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was the editor-in-chief and the publisher of the biweekly newspaper entitled ‘ Demokratik Halk İktidarı İçin İşçi Köylü ’. On 23 June 2010 the Istanbul public prosecutor requested the Istanbul Assize Court to ban the distribution of issue no. 68 of the newspaper in question. On the same day the Istanbul Assize Court banned the distribution of issue no. 68 and ordered the seizure of all published copies of that issue. The assize court noted, in its decision, that the public prosecutor had requested the ban since an article entitled “17’s were commemorated” contained propaganda in favour of the PKK (an illegal organisation) and since some expressions in other articles constituted the offence of praising an offence or an offender. The assize court did not specify the exact statements which were at the basis of its decision. On 30 June 2010 the applicant objected to the decision of 23 June 2010. On 2 July 2010 the assize court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 13 July 2010 the assize court decision was served on the applicant. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6, 10 and 13 of the Convention that she did not have a fair hearing as she was not given the opportunity to submit her observations regarding the prosecutor’s request and that she did not have an effective remedy to challenge the assize court’s decision. The applicant further complains under Article 10 that the ban on the distribution of the newspaper violated her right to freedom of expression. The applicant finally complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the seizure order. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to submit a copy of the investigation file launched against the newspaper. ITMarkQuestionEnd