CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 17 February 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 33880/23 Soydan KOÇ against Türkiye lodged on 21 August 2023 communicated on 29 January 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of the applicant’s right not to be tried twice under Article 4 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention. On 1 March 2021 the applicant was convicted of sexual harassment ( cinsel taciz ) based on his acts and words that took place on 6 November 2020. The conviction has become final with the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal’s decision dated 6   October 2021. On 5 January 2022, in a separate set of criminal proceedings, the applicant was acquitted with final effect of sexual harassment and harassment ( huzur ve sükûneti bozma ) on the basis of his acts and words that took place on 6   November 2020. The applicant alleges that there has been a breach of the ne bis in idem principle in that he was tried, for a second time, for, and acquitted of his acts and words in respect of which he had already been convicted with final effect.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been tried twice for the same offence in the territory of the respondent State, as prohibited by Article   4 §   1 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention ( see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, §§   47   ss., ECHR   2009, and A   and   B v.   Norway   [GC], nos.   24130/11 and   29758/11, §§   101-134, 15   November 2016)?