CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 juin 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 6 June 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 41543/11 Milkerem AKCAN against Turkey lodged on 12 August 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Milkerem Akcan, is an Turkish national, who was born in 1985 and lives in Şanlıurfa. He is represented before the Court by Mr N. Deniz, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 13 February 2010 the applicant participated in a demonstration and chanted slogans in Kurdish and Turkish such as “ Dısa dısa serhildan serokeme Öcalan ” (“Rise up again and again, our president is Öcalan”), “ Biji Serok Apo ” (“Long Live President Apo (Abdullah Öcalan)”) in favour of the leader of an illegal organisation, PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party). On 17 February 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police and was subsequently brought before the Suruç Public Prosecutor. He had been advised of the charges against him, as well as of his right to remain silent and to have access to a lawyer. He refused the assistance of a lawyer and denied the accusations made against him. Later on the same date the applicant was questioned by the Suruç Magistrates’ Court. Despite his refusal a lawyer was statutorily designated for him during his questioning by the Magistrates’ Court. In the defence submissions his lawyer categorically denied all the accusations against the applicant and requested the release of the applicant. At the end of the questioning the judge ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on suspicion of making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation. On an unspecified date the public prosecutor issued an indictment charging the applicant with committing a crime on behalf of an illegal organisation without being a member thereof, under Article 314 of the Criminal Code, and with making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation, under Article 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law   No. 3713). On 27 April 2010, at the first hearing, the Diyarbakır Assize Court advised the applicant of his right to be assisted by a lawyer. However, the documents in the case file reveal that he refused the assistance of a lawyer and again denied the accusations made against him. On the same date the Assize Court found the applicant guilty of making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation due to participating in the demonstration as charged, and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment. Relying on the fact that the applicant had chanted slogans it further convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to six years and three months’ imprisonment. The court took into account the incident report, video recordings of the demonstration and the experts’ report on the video recordings. The applicant decided to retain a lawyer for the appeal proceedings. On 29   January 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. On 10 March 2011 the decision was served on the applicant. B.     Relevant domestic law Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code reads as follows: “Anyone who becomes a member of an (illegal) organisation mentioned in the first paragraph of this Article shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of from five to ten years.” A full description of Section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law No. 3713) may be found in Faruk Temel v. Turkey no.   16853/05 , §§   43-64, 1 February 2011). COMPLAINTS Invoking Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention the applicant complains that the criminal proceedings brought against him on the grounds of attending a demonstration and chanting slogans constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. 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?