CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 février 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   Communicated on 12 February 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 50239/11 Fesih ÇOBAN against Turkey lodged on 31 May 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 resisting the police under Article 265 of the Criminal Code on account of his participation in a demonstration, during which he allegedly acted together with demonstrators who chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and who clashed with the security forces. The applicant relies on Articles 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular,   (a)     Was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the admission and assessment of evidence by the courts (see, mutatis mutandis , Kasparov and Others v. Russia , no. 21613/07, § 64, 3 October 2013, and Navalnyy v. Russia , no. 29580/12, §§ 63 ‑ 75, 2 February 2017)?   (b)     Does the first-instance court’s judgment contain adequate reasoning for the applicant’s convictions under Articles 220 § 6, 265 and 314 of the Criminal Code as well as section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (see Vetrenko v.   Moldova , no. 36552/02, § 55, 18 May 2010; Ajdarić v.   Croatia , no. 20883/09, § 51, 13 December 2011; and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-124 11   February 2016)?   2.     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?   The Government are invited to submit a copy of the case file pertaining to the criminal proceedings against the applicant, including the police video recording of the event and the police report on the examination of the video recording.