CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 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 12 December 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 73487/12 Sevgi TAŞ (ÇAKAR) against Turkey lodged on 3 September 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1985 and lives in Elazığ. The application concerns the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant 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 (Law no. 3713), on account of her participation in the International Workers’ Day demonstration organised by the KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of Public Employees’ Trade Unions) and held on 1   May 2006 in Elazığ. On 19 January 2012 the applicant was sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment by the Malatya Assize Court and, the pronouncement of her conviction was suspended on the condition that she did not commit another intentional offence for a period of five years, under Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması ). The applicant’s objection was dismissed on 27 March 2012. The applicant relies on Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, or her right to freedom of assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, on account of her conviction under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act? In particular, did the Suruç Criminal Court provide reasons for its decision (see Gülcü v. Turkey , no. 17526/10, §§ 113 and 114, 19 January 2016)?