CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 25 October 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6696/20 Mustafa AYDIN against Turkey lodged on 25 January 2020 communicated on 8 October 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention owing to the domestic courts’ failure to indicate with sufficient clarity the grounds on which they based their decision to convict the applicant of membership of an armed terrorist organisation under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code. In the same vein, the application further pertains to the domestic courts’ allegedly flawed examination of the applicant’s submissions and the evidence against him and to the resulting lack of individualised reasoning in their assessment in respect of him.   At the material time, the applicant was working as a journalist for the Fırat News Agency. Before the Court, he complains under Article 6 §§   1 and   2 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ decisions to convict him lacked sufficient reasons and an individual assessment in respect of his personal situation. In this respect, the applicant alleges that the domestic courts simply disregarded and did not assess the following points in their judgments: (i) witness R.S. – whose evidence was at the centre of the case- who had made no statements relating the applicant; (ii) although he was considered to have been the press secretary of the organisation in İzmir on the basis of a simple printout found at the house of another co-accused, he did not know any of the other co-accused, save for E.Y. with whom he had worked with in the same news agency; (iii) he did not have any telephone conversations with any of the other co-accused with the exception of E.Y. with whom he had talked about daily issues as demonstrated by the transcripts of their telephone conversations; (iv) the word “ afiş ” as used in his telephone conversations meant a café with the same name (as was demonstrated by its photographs submitted to the trial court) where he had met his friends and not the act of putting the banners of any organisation as had been interpreted by the police, and (v) the fact that he had participated in a TV programme on Roj TV and made certain comments as a journalist could not be considered an offence.     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, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decision to convict him of membership of an armed terrorist organisation under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code? Did the trial court’s reasoned decision contain an individualised assessment in respect of the applicant?   2.     Did the domestic courts establish the relevant facts forming part of the applicant’s conviction after a proper examination of his submissions, arguments and the evidence adduced? In that connection, did they respond to the applicant’s specific arguments as regards the accusation levelled against him?   The Government is invited to submit copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case, including, but not limited to, the minutes of all the hearings, statements of the applicant, the evidence against him, and the written submissions submitted in respect of him throughout the proceedings. The Government are further invited to submit the translation of the relevant pages of the domestic court’s reasoned judgment dated 24   January 2014.