CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2017

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 }   Communicated on 18 January 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 47713/12 Hasan GÜVEN against Turkey lodged on 8 May 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Hasan Güven, is a Turkish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Mardin. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 7 February 2006 the applicant and two other persons were arrested in the Kızıltepe district of Mardin. They were carrying forty-nine copies of a petition addressed to the Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the Office of the President of Turkey, the Office of the President of the Parliament of Turkey and the Office of the Prime Minister of Turkey. The petition contained the following sentence: “As a person from Kurdistan, I consider and recognise Mr./Esteemed Abdullah Öcalan as a political representative.” On 8 February 2006 the applicant was remanded in custody. On an unspecified date the Diyarbakır public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Diyarbakır Assize Court charging the applicant and the other two persons with membership of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation. On 27 April 2006 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the accused as charged. On 5 December 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 27   April 2006, holding that the applicant and his co-accused should have been convicted of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK, under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). On the same day the applicant was released pending trial. In the criminal proceedings before the Diyarbakır Assize Court the applicant stated that on the day of his arrest he had been approached by young men who had asked him to sign the petition. They had then asked the applicant to help them and he had accepted their request. On 19 June 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant and his co-accused under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and sentenced them to two years and one month of imprisonment each. The trial court noted that the applicant and his co-accused had been in possession of forty-two unsigned and seven signed copies of the aforementioned petition when they had been arrested. The court further observed that the applicant and one of his co-accused had acknowledged that they had had the intention of collecting signatures from passers-by. The Diyarbakır Assize Court noted that the PKK had organised the petition campaign in question and that the co-accused had been working to achieve the PKK’s goals. In the trial court’s view, the content of the petition aimed to influence society by conveying a positive attitude towards the PKK and its aims. The court therefore concluded that the applicant and his co-accused had disseminated propaganda in favour of the PKK by attempting to collect signatures on the petition. On 14 December 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 19   June 2008. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that his conviction and sentence under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 constituted a breach of his rights to freedom of thought and freedom of expression.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 10 of the Convention, on account of his conviction under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law   no.   3713)?