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 } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .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. 12052/20 Nazım ALTINTAŞ against Türkiye lodged on 18 February 2020 communicated on 10 June 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s pre-trial detention and his conviction by the Assize Court to seven years and six months of imprisonment for membership of a terrorist organisation, namely FETÖ/PDY ( Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure ), pursuant to Article   314 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The conviction was based on the following evidence: (i) bank account activities, (ii) his subscription to the Zaman newspaper, (iii) his social media posts and other interactions thereon, (iv)   his donation to the Kimse Yok Mu association which is allegedly affiliated with FETÖ/PDY, (v) his own statements indicating that he had attended a few organisational ( sohbet ) meetings. Relying on Articles 10 and 7 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the use as the basis of his conviction of: (i) his social media interactions and subscriptions to a newspaper and (ii) his acts that, in his view, did not constitute a crime, due to an extensive and arbitrary interpretation of the applicable laws. He further claims under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ decisions as to his detention as well as his conviction lacked sufficient reasons and an individual assessment in respect of his personal situation.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES      Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the applicant’s pre-trial detention, in accordance with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention ( Buzadji v. Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§   84-102, 5   July 2016)?      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 in their judgments to convict him 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)?      Was the applicant’s conviction for membership of a terrorist organisation compatible with the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention having regard to the acts on which his conviction was based (see, in particular, mutatis mutandis , Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no.   15669/20, §§   214 ‑ 272, 26   September 2023)?      Was there an infringement of the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, due to his criminal conviction, among others, on account of his social media posts and subscription to a newspaper? If so, was this infringement justified within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 (see, mutatis mutandis , Üçdağ v.   Turkey , no.   23314/19, §§ 74-88, 31   August 2021)?