CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 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 } .s28F5597F { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 5 September 2014     SECOND SECTION Applications nos 60087/10 and 19631/12 Adnan ÖĞRÜ against Turkey lodged on 31 August 2010 and 8 March 2011 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Adnan Öğrü, is a Turkish national, who was born in   1954 and lives in Adana. He is the manager of the Human Rights Association in Adana. He is represented before the Court by Ms B. Günyeli, a lawyer practising in Adana. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Application no. 60087/10 On various dates the applicant along with other demonstrators gathered in Adana and attended the reading out of press statements. The Adana Governorship imposed on the applicant administrative fines of 143 Turkish liras (approximately 73 Euros) in respect of each occasion. (The total amount is not clear from the documents in the case file.) It held that Article 32 of the Law on Misdemeanours (Law no. 5326) had been infringed by intentionally disobeying the orders issued by authorised bodies with the aim of protecting public order and safety. The applicant filed objections against each of the decisions. On 8 May 2010, 23 August 2010 and 15 October 2010 the Adana Magistrates’ Court dismissed the applicant’s objections by decisions against which no appeal was available, finding that the Adana Governorship had prohibited making press statements at the place where the demonstrators had gathered and read out the press statement. On an unspecified date the applicant paid the requested amounts to the relevant tax department. Application no. 19631/12 On 13 October 2010 the applicant along with other demonstrators gathered in front of the courthouse in Adana and attended the reading out of a press statement to draw attention to the problems of working parents. On an unspecified date the Adana Governorship imposed an administrative fine of 143 Turkish liras (approximately 73 Euros) on the applicant, holding that Article 32 of Law no. 5326 had been infringed by intentionally disobeying the orders issued by authorised bodies with the aim of protecting public order and safety. The applicant filed an objection against that decision. On 15 February 2011 the Adana Magistrates’ Court dismissed the applicant’s objection. The decision of the Adana Magistrates’ Court was final and not subject to appeal. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant section of the Misdemeanours Act (Law no. 5326) reads: Section 32 “Persons acting contrary to the orders given by the competent authorities (...) for the protection of the public safety, public order and public health shall have an administrative fine of 100 Turkish liras imposed on them”. COMPLAINTS Invoking Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was sentenced to administrative fines on the ground of his attendance at the demonstrations, which constituted a violation of his freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of peaceful   assembly within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in compliance with Article 11 § 2 of the Convention?