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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   Communicated on 24 August 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40401/15 Sait TAYFUR against Turkey lodged on 28 July 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1957. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Erzurum prison. He was a member of the BDP (Party for Peace and Democracy) at the time of the events giving rise to the present application. The application concerns the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for membership of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, under Article   314 of the Criminal Code and for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section   7 §   2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The applicant relies on Articles   10 and   11 of the Convention. At the end of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, the trial court found it established, on the basis of records of the applicant’s telephone conversations and police video recordings of demonstrations, that the applicant had been one of the local leaders of the PKK in the district of Doğubeyazıt and that he had made arrangements for young people willing to become PKK members to go to PKK bases in rural areas. The court further held that the applicant had participated in all demonstrations held in Doğubeyazıt in which violent acts had been committed and that he had prevented citizens to vote during the referendum of 12   September 2010 in line with the PKK’s will. On the basis of the aforementioned findings, the court convicted the applicant of membership of the PKK and sentenced him to twelve years of imprisonment. The applicant was also convicted under section   7 §   2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of disseminating propaganda in favour of that organisation on the grounds that he had referred to a deceased member of the PKK as “martyr” in one text message, that he had carried that person’s photograph on the lapel of his jacket and that he had organised a demonstration which had then become a propaganda event in favour of the PKK. The latter conviction was subsequently quashed by the Court of Cassation and the criminal proceedings brought under section   7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act were suspended. The applicant applied to the Constitutional Court and alleged a breach of his rights to liberty, to a fair trial and to freedom of assembly. The Constitutional Court decided to examine the applicant’s complaints from the standpoint of the right to a fair trial alone and rejected them as being manifestly ill-founded. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention on account of the criminal proceedings brought against him for membership of the PKK under Article   314 of the Criminal Code and for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section   7 §   2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 §   2 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit a copy of all documents in the file regarding the criminal proceedings against the applicant (file no.   2011/166 before the Erzurum Assize Court). In particular, the Government are requested to submit all documents and audio materials on the basis of which the first-instance court concluded that the applicant was one of the local leaders of the PKK in the district of Doğubeyazıt and that he had made arrangements for young people willing to become PKK members to go to PKK bases in rural areas and the judgment rendered by the Erzurum Assize Court subsequent to the Court of Cassation’s decision dated 6   June 2014.