CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } Communicated on 28 August 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 65524/12 B.A. against Turkey lodged on 27 September 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction and imprisonment for membership of an illegal organisation (the PKK) under Articles 220 §   6 and   314 of the Criminal Code, for having taken part in a demonstration, where he had allegedly carried a banner containing propaganda of the PKK and thrown stones at the police. The applicant mainly complains under Article 6 of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, arguing in particular that his conviction had been based solely on expert evidence provided by the police, and under Article 11 that his conviction had amounted to a violation of the right to freedom of assembly. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular; (a)     Did the Diyarbakir Assize Court comply with the principle of equality of arms in the appointment of experts? (b)     Was the expert opinion provided by a police officer the only evidence to prove the applicant’s participation at the demonstration in question, where he had allegedly carried a banner containing propaganda of the PKK and thrown stones at the police? If so, could this expert opinion be considered as independent and was the applicant provided with an opportunity to obtain an alternative expert examination (see, for instance, Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   17995/02, §§   38-43, 5 April 2007, and Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 26711/07 and 2 others, §§ 94-104, 12   May 2016)? If not, did the applicant’s inability to obtain an alternative expert report amount to a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?   2.     Did the Court of Cassation provide sufficient reasoning for its decision upholding the judgment of the Diyarbakır Assize Court, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the specific objections made by the applicant against the assize court’s judgment?   The Government are invited to submit a copy of the criminal case file .   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, on account of his conviction?