CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 20 February 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 52720/21 Kemal KILIÇDAROĞLU against Türkiye lodged on 23 September 2021 communicated on 1 February 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the impartiality of one of the Constitutional Court judges who ruled on the applicant’s constitutional complaint. The applicant, the chairman of Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (People’s Republican Party – “the CHP”), the main opposition party, was ordered to pay non-pecuniary damages in defamation proceedings lodged by a former Minister of Youth and Sports. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, he lodged an individual appeal with the Constitutional Court. In a decision of 10   March 2021, the Constitutional Court, sitting in a panel of five judges, including the newly elected member İ.F., declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible for being out of time. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court was not impartial because at the time of consideration of his appeal by that court, judge İ.F. had already filed civil defamation proceedings against him in connection with a speech the applicant had delivered on 22   December 2020. He further complains under Article   10 of the Convention about the violation of his freedom of expression in connection with the proceedings whereby he was ordered to pay non-pecuniary damages to the former Minister of Youth and Sports.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the participation of judge İ.F. in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, was the panel which examined the applicant’s individual appeal an “impartial tribunal” within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Morice v.   France [GC], no.   29369/10, §§   73-78, ECHR 2015)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Kılıçdaroğlu v.   Turkey , no.   16558/18, §§ 42-46, 27 October 2020)?