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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 17 February 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 7977/24 Cemil YEĞİN against Türkiye lodged on 14 March 2024 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 and punished twice under Article 4 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention. The application further pertains to an alleged breach of Article   7 of the Convention on the grounds that the applicant’s conviction under Article   220   §   6 of the Criminal Code in the second set of criminal proceedings lacked any legal basis, given the Constitutional Court’s decision to annul that provision on 26 October 2023. Lastly, the application concerns an alleged breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, due to the domestic courts’ failure in the second set of criminal proceedings to deal with the expert report commissioned by the trial court, which indicated that further technical inquiries should be carried out to hold the applicant criminally responsible for the hacking in question. On 19 February 2015 the applicant was convicted of the offence of “impairing the information system of a public institution” under Article   244 of the Criminal Code on the basis that he had hacked the IT system of an elementary school and put material disseminating the propaganda of the so ‑ called leader of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) on it. The proceedings against the applicant in respect of the offence of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation (section   7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act) on the basis of the same acts were suspended pursuant to Law no. 6352. This suspension was conditional upon the applicant not committing another offence of the same type within a period of three years. On 26 April 2016 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction, but it held that a fresh criminal complaint should be lodged against him on the grounds that the facts of the case also gave rise to the offence of committing an offence on behalf of an armed terrorist organisation without being its member (Article 220 § 6 of the Criminal Code). On 7 June 2018, in a separate set of criminal proceedings, the applicant was convicted of committing an offence on behalf of the PKK without being its member, on the grounds that he had hacked the IT system of the same elementary school and put material disseminating the propaganda of the so ‑ called leader of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) on it. On 24 May 2022 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction. On 10 November 2023 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s application in which he complained of a breach of Article 4 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention and he was notified of this decision on 15 November 2023. The applicant complains, Article 4 of Protocol No.   7 of the Convention, that he was tried and punished twice for the same offence, and further complains, under Article 7 of the Convention that his conviction under Article   220   §   6 of the Criminal Code had lacked a legal basis, because the provision in question was annulled by the Constitutional Court on 26 October 2023. Lastly, the applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, arguing that the domestic courts had failed to consider the expert report commissioned by the Ankara Assize Court, which contained findings in his favour.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been tried and punished 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, for general principles, 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)? 2.     Having regard to the Constitutional Court’s decision to rescind Article   220   §   6 of the Criminal Code, could the applicant’s conviction under that provision be said to have a legal basis as required by Article   7 of the Convention (see, for general principles, Yüksel Yalçınkaya v.   Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, §§   237-242, 26   September 2023, and Coëme and Others v. Belgium , nos.   32492/96 and 4 others, §   145, ECHR   2000-VII)? 3.     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 in the second set of criminal proceedings deal with the conclusions contained in the expert report commissioned by the Ankara Assize Court, which stated that further steps should be taken to determine the applicant’s criminal responsibility for the hacking in question (see Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey , nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, §§   127-128 and 151-161, 27 October 2020)?