CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 juillet 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 17 July 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 46127/11 Mustafa ÇELİK against Turkey lodged on 5 July 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the conviction of the applicant for membership of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation under Articles 220 § 6 and 314 of the Criminal Code and for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act on account of his participation in four demonstration, during which he allegedly chanted slogans in favour of the PKK. The applicant relies on Articles 6 § 2, 7, 10 and   11 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, or his right to freedom of assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, on account of his convictions under Articles 220 § 6 and 314 of the Criminal Code and section   7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act?   2.     Has the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, which requires that when carrying out their duties, the members of a court should not start with the preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offence charged; the burden of proof is on the prosecution; and any doubt should benefit the accused been respected in the instant case (see, mutatis mutandis, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v.   Spain , 6   December 1988, § 77, Series A no. 146; Lavents v.   Latvia , no.   58442/00, §   125, 28 November 2002; Melich and Beck v.   the Czech Republic , no.   35450/04, § 49, 24 July 2008; and Nemtsov v.   Russia , no.   1774/11, § 92, 31 July 2014)? In particular, was the burden of proof shifted to the applicant?   3.     Having regard to the wording of Article 220 § 6 of the Criminal Code, the decisions of the Court of Cassation concerning Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 100 of the Opinion on Articles 216, 299, 301 and   314 of the Penal Code of Turkey of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) (CDL-AD(2016)002)) and the decision of the Plenary Decision of the Court of Cassation (Criminal Divisions) of 4 March 2008 (Case no. 2007/9-282, Decision no. 2008/44), has there been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention in the present case ( Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 79, ECHR 2013)?