CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juillet 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 7 July 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 50171/09 İzzet BELGE against Turkey lodged on 10 September 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr İzzet Belge, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Şırnak. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, the applicant was the President of the Şırnak branch of the DTP (Party for a Democratic Society). He is represented before the Court by Mrs   M. Beştaş and Mr M. Beştaş, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 3 September 2005 the DTP organised a demonstration in the Gemlik district of Bursa in order to protest about the conditions of detention in prisons and in particular those of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation. On 5 September 2005 a group who had attended the meeting in Gemlik returned to Cizre, a district of Şırnak, and a demonstration was held on their return. The applicant, in his capacity as the President of the Şırnak branch of the DTP, made a speech during that demonstration in which he stated the following: “...We want peace in this country. Those who wish for war prevent us from having peace. As you know, Mr Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the Kurdish people, called for a ceasefire six years ago. The Government have failed to assess properly this six-year long unilateral ceasefire and therefore the war has re-started. We have once again started to receive the bodies of guerrillas and soldiers. We want an end to the crying of the guerrillas’ and soldiers’ mothers. We want peace. Mr Abdullah Öcalan has not been able to meet his lawyers or family members for the last three months. We believe that this sanction is harmful to the peace process.” On 6 October 2005 the Cizre public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Cizre Criminal Court against the applicant and four other persons. The applicant was charged with the offence of disseminating propaganda in favour of a criminal organisation and its purposes proscribed by Article   220   (8) of the Criminal Code. On 7 October 2005 the Cizre Criminal Court accepted the bill of indictment. On 22 December 2006 the Cizre Criminal Court issued a decision based on lack of jurisdiction as it considered that the acts of the accused should be examined under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law   no.   3713). The case was subsequently transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court. On 19 February 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court rendered its judgment in the case. In its judgment, the court noted that the applicant had referred to Mr Öcalan as “the leader of the Kurdish people” and to the members of the PKK who had been killed as “guerrillas”. The court further noted that the applicant had directed the demonstrators chanting slogans in favour of the PKK, waving yellow, red and green clothes and carrying Abdullah Öcalan’s photographs. The first-instance court, as a result, convicted the applicant of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation under section   7(2) of Law no. 3713 and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment. On 13 July 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır Assize Court. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his conviction constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, on account of his conviction under section   7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law   no.   3713)?