CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 août 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 24 August 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45540/09 Seyfettin DEMİR against Turkey lodged on 17 August 2009 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. The first-instance court considered that the applicant had acted on behalf of the PKK, an illegal armed organization, and thus was a member of that organization on the basis of the following acts: participation in a demonstration held on 27 January 2008, covering his face, chanting slogans in favour of the PKK and carrying a banner which read “Youth to HPG (People’s Defence Force, the armed wing of the PKK) during the demonstration. The applicant was sentenced to six years and three months of imprisonment. He 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 assembly, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention, on account of his conviction under Articles   220 §   6 and 314 of the Criminal Code?   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 (see, mutatis mutandis , Del Río Prada v.   Spain [GC], no.   42750/09, §   79, ECHR   2013)?