CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juin 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s978ECBF2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sACBB7403 { width:6.79pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 1 July 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10279/23 Ayşe DEMİR against Türkiye lodged on 6 February 2023 communicated on 10 June 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged non-compliance of the criminal proceedings against the applicant with 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 pursuant to Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code. It further raises an issue under Article 7 of the Convention owing to an allegedly arbitrary interpretation of the applicable law in convicting the applicant. The applicant was convicted to 5 years, 18 months and 22 days of imprisonment on account of membership of a terrorist organisation, namely FETÖ/PDY (“ Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure ”). The Assize Court based its decision on the following evidence: (i)   the applicant’s previous employment in certain companies allegedly linked with FETÖ/PDY, (ii) account activities in Bank Asya, (iii) a witness statement alleging that the applicant was a member of the organisation, and (iv) the fact that she was arrested in a house which was reported as one of the secret “safe” houses of the organisation used to hide its members after the attempted coup ( gaybubet evi ). Relying on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic courts’ judgments convicting her lacked sufficient reasons and an individual assessment in respect of her personal situation. In this regard, the applicant alleges that the domestic courts simply disregarded and did not assess her following arguments in their judgments: (i)   the only witness stated, upon seeing the applicant during the hearing, that she must have been mistaken during her previous interrogation while identifying the applicant from photographs, (ii) her account in Bank Asya was a salary account and the activities referred to by the domestic courts were ordinary bank activities, (iii)   the house she was arrested in was not a safe house of FETÖ/PDY but her residence which she rented on her name to stay with her family. Relying on Article 7 of the Convention, the applicant further claims that she was convicted on the basis of acts that did not constitute a crime, due to an extensive and arbitrary interpretation of the relevant laws.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES      Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons in their judgments to convict her of membership of an armed terrorist organisation under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11   July 2017)? Did the trial court’s reasoned judgment contain an individualised assessment in respect of the applicant?      Was the applicant’s conviction for membership of a terrorist organisation compatible with the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention (see, in particular, mutatis mutandis , Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no.   15669/20, §§ 214-272, 26 September 2023)?