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 }   Published on 1 July 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40451/20 Halil İbrahim BERBER against Türkiye lodged on 7 September 2020 communicated on 10 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant on charges of his membership of a terrorist organisation, namely FETÖ/PDY ( Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure ), which resulted in his conviction to 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The conviction was based on the following evidence: (i) his previous employment in various educational institutions allegedly affiliated with FETÖ/PDY, (ii) his subscriptions to periodicals, Zaman and Sızıntı , allegedly linked to FETÖ/PDY, (iii) bank account activities, (iv) his attendance of a group trip to Bosnia and Herzegovina organised by an institution allegedly affiliated with the organisation, (v) the Historical Traffic Search (HTS) records showing that he had been in contact with those who were suspects of criminal investigations concerning membership of FETÖ/PDY (without specifying the content of the phone calls or messages), (vi) a compact disc found during the search in his private home which contains a presentation on the inspection and closure of FETÖ/PDY affiliated educational institutions as well as records of a number of public speeches given by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant claims that the domestic courts’ judgments convicting him lacked sufficient reasoning. He further claims under Articles 7, 10 and 11 of the Convention that he was convicted on the basis of acts that did not constitute a crime, due to an extensive and arbitrary interpretation of the relevant laws; and that subscription to periodicals as well as attendance to a group trip abroad were used as evidence for his conviction in violation of his right to freedom of expression and assembly. 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 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)? Did the trial court’s reasoned judgment contain a sufficiently individualised assessment in respect of the applicant?   2.     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 ‑ 72, 26 September 2023)?   3.     Did the applicant’s conviction for membership of a terrorist organisation on the basis of, inter alia , his subscriptions to certain periodicals and attendance to a group trip to Bosnia and Herzegovina constitute an interference with his right to freedom of expression and assembly within the meaning of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified under the second paragraphs of those provisions (see, in particular, mutatis mutandis , Yüksel Yalçınkaya v.   Türkiye [GC], no.   15669/20, §§   385 ‑ 401, 26 September 2023)?