CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 26 September 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42153/11 Ramazan TAŞ against Turkey lodged on 15 June 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, for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and for participating in an illegal demonstration under Article 28 of the Marches and Demonstrations Act, on account of his participation in four demonstrations, during which he allegedly chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and its leader. The applicant relies on Articles 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (a) and (d), 7, 10 and   11 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, on account of the inability of the applicant to examine Mr   F.G., the expert who prepared the report dated 19 March 2010 (see Constantinides v. Greece , no. 76438/12, 6 October 2016)?   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 in respect of the charge brought against him under Articles   220 § 6 and 314 of the Criminal Code?   3.     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, section   7 §   2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and Article 28 of the Marches and Demonstrations Act?