CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 septembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   Communicated on 22 September 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 57031/10 Selçuk MART and others against Turkey lodged on 21 August 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants, Mr Selçuk Mart, Mr Yusuf Bayraktar and Ms   Selver   Orman are Turkish nationals who were born 1982, 1983 and 1981 respectively. They live in Ankara. The application concerns the conviction of the applicants for disseminating propaganda in favour of the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), an illegal armed organisation, under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In its judgment, the first-instance court held that Komünist Gençlik Örgütü (Communist Youth Organisation), Ezilenlerin Sosyalist Platformu (The Socialist Platform of the Oppressed), a newspaper called Atılım and a periodical called Özgür Gençlik were sub-sections of the MLKP. It further held that the applicants had participated in demonstrations organised by the aforementioned entities. According to the judgment, the applicants had chanted slogans in favour of the MLKP and carried banners and flags symbolising that organisation during those demonstrations. In respect of the second and third applicants, the court further noted that documents and books had been found in their houses. As regards the third applicant, the first-instance court also noted that she had been an administrator in Atılım and that she had disseminated calls for participation in demonstrations. The applicants were sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment each. The applicants allege a violation of their rights under Articles 7, 10 and   11 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, or their right to freedom of assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, on account of their conviction under section   7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act? In particular, (a)     Was the interference with the applicants’ rights under Articles 10 and   11 of the Convention prescribed by law, in terms of Articles 10 § 2 and   11 §   2? (b)     Who organised the demonstrations in which the applicants had participated and which served as the basis for the applicants’ criminal convictions? (c)     What are the content of the slogans that were allegedly chanted by the applicants? (d)     What is the relationship between the third applicant’s work in Atılım and her criminal conviction?   The Government are invited to submit a copy of all documents in case no.   2004/348.