CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 juin 2019

.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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   Communicated on 17 June 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45779/18 Serferaz DEMİRER against Turkey lodged on 18 September 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant due to lack of sufficient reasons provided by the domestic courts in their judgments, by which the applicant was convicted under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The applicant was convicted of membership of PKK and the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. The first-instance court considered that the applicant had acted on behalf of the PKK and thus was a member of that organisation on the basis that she had made a false statement about her identity during her arrest by the gendarmerie officers while crossing the border from Syria. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were sufficient reasons given for the applicant’s conviction in order to show that why her acts were described as criminal at all? In particular, having regard to the decisions of the Court of Cassation concerning Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 100 of the Opinion on Articles 216, 299, 301 and 314 of the Penal Code of Turkey of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) (CDL-AD(2016)002)) and the decision of the Plenary Court of Cassation (Criminal Divisions) of 4 March 2008 (Case no.   2007/9 ‑ 282, Decision no. 2008/44), did the domestic court duly considered the significant aspects of the criminal case directed against her (see, Taxquet v.   Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 91, ECHR 2010; Tchankotadze v.   Georgia , no.   15256/05, § 108, 21 June 2016, and mutatis mutandis , Del Río Prada v.   Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 79, ECHR 2013)?   The Government is invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings. In particular, the Government is further invited to submit the translation of the second and the third pages of the reasoned judgment of the trial court dated 24   May 2016).