CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mai 2024

.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 } Published on 17   June 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12095/23 Emre OĞUL against Türkiye lodged on 3 March 2023 communicated on 27 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant to a prison sentence combined with a measure of suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment on charges of insulting the President of the Republic due to his statements on his social media account. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the judgments of the first-instance court and appeal court lacked sufficient reasoning. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant also complained that his conviction and the subsequent application of a measure of suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment violated his freedom of expression. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, due to his conviction to a prison sentence combined with a measure of suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   Was the measure of the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment imposed on the applicant prescribed by a legal basis defining the scope and modalities of this measure with sufficient clarity to enable the applicant to enjoy the degree of protection required by the rule of law in a democratic society ( Durukan and Birol v. Türkiye , nos. 14879/20 and 13440/21, §§   58 ‑ 68, 3   October 2023)?