CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 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 } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 27 September 2017   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 30252/11 and 17606/11 Savaş DÜZGÜN and Serpil ARSLAN DÜZGÜN against Turkey and Nazire AYATA CİVELEK against Turkey lodged on 15 February 2011 and 31 December 2010 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ conviction for aiding an illegal armed organisation, the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party ‑ Front) under Article 169 of the former Criminal Code on account of their participation in a number of demonstrations and other public gatherings, their alleged role in two legally established associations, namely the Association for Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and the Youth Association, and documents prepared by a certain M.Y. According to those documents, the first applicant had been previously detained on remand, the second applicant had been deemed to be suitable for carrying out activities in favour of the DHKP-C and the third applicant had participated in organising various activities in the context of the work of the aforementioned associations with a view to recruiting supporters to the DHKP-C. The documents in question were found in computer discs at the premises of a periodical during a search carried out allegedly in breach of the procedural requirements concerning house searches. In 2010 the applicants’ criminal convictions became final. In 2012, subsequent to the entry into force of Law   no.   6352, the judgment convicting the applicants was revised and they were convicted of the offences under Article 220 § 7 and 314 of the Criminal Code. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, (a)     Did the national courts examine the lawfulness of the search of the premises of the periodical “Ekmek ve Adalet” and check the reliability as well as the accuracy of the evidence obtained thereby (see, mutatis mutandis , Prade v. Germany , no. 7215/10, 3 March 2016)? Were there procedural safeguards in relation to the applicants’ allegation concerning the way in which the search was carried out (see, mutatis mutandis , Bykov v.   Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009; Lisica v. Croatia , no.   20100/06, 25 February 2010; Horvatić v. Croatia , no. 36044/09, 17   October 2013; and, Layijov v. Azerbaijan , no.   22062/07, 10   April 2014)? (b)     Did the applicants’ and their lawyers’ inability to have access to the documents in the hard discs, floppy discs and compact discs which had been found at the premises of the periodical “Ekmek ve Adalet” and the use of the police reports concerning the documents in the aforementioned discs by the first-instance court breached their right to a fair trial (see Natunen v.   Finland , no. 21022/04, 31 March 2009) (c)     Does the first-instance court’s judgment contain adequate reasoning for the applicants’ conviction under Article 169 of the former Criminal Code (see Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, 11   February 2016)?   2.     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 convictions?