CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mai 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 31 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 77711/11 Aydın SUER against Turkey lodged on 12 October 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention on account of his conviction for disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation on the basis of the two text messages which were sent from his mobile phone.   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case, including but not limited to the pre-trial statements of the applicant and of their co-defendants, minutes of all the hearings, documentary evidence against the applicants and the reasoned judgment(s) of the trial courts, the applicant’s and his lawyer’s written submissions both before the trial courts and before the Court of Cassation. In the same vein, the Government are further invited to submit the trial court’s decision following the applicant’s application under the provisional article 1 of Law no. 6352. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 10 of the Convention, on account of his conviction under section 7 (2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no.   3713)? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 § 2 (see Faruk Temel v. Turkey , no. 16853/05, §§   53 ‑ 57, 1   February 2011, and Belge v. Turkey , no. 50171/09, §§ 31, 34 and   35, 6   December 2016)? In particular, having regard to the content of the text messages complained of by the applicant, the context in which they were sent and their potential to lead to harmful consequences, did the national courts carry out a sufficient examination of and an adequate balancing exercise between the interests at stake having due regard to the criteria set out and implemented by the Court in cases concerning freedom of expression? ( Gözel and Özer , nos. 43453/04 and 31098/05, § 64, 6 July 2010, Bayar v.   Turkey (nos. 1-8), our 39690/06, 40559/06, 48815/06, 2512/07, 55197/07, 55199/07, 55201/07 and 55202/07, § 51, 25 March 2014, and Mart and   Others v. Turkey , no. 57031/10, § 32, 19 March 2019)?