CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } Published on 25 August 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 18058/24 Hacı ÇEVİK against Türkiye lodged on 11 June 2024 communicated on 4 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly continuing threat of criminal proceedings faced by the applicant under Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code on account of a tweet that he posted on his twitter account. The applicant is an academic specialised in migration studies. On 31   January 2018 he posted a tweet on the social network Twitter which stated “#efrinişgalinehayır” (“say no to Afrin’s occupation”) , during the Turkish Armed Forces’ military operations in the Kurdish-majority Afrin district of northwest Syria against the YPG (People’s Protection Units, organisation founded in Syria and regarded as a terrorist organisation by Türkiye). On 22 July 2019 an indictment was filed before the Ankara 15 th Assize Court accusing the applicant of having disseminated propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation due to his impugned social media post. On 21 November 2019, at the first hearing of the prosecution before the Assize Court, the public prosecutor stated that the accusation made against the applicant may be re-categorised as the offence of publicly denigrating the Turkish nation or the organs and institutions of the state under Article 301 of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 301 § 4, which prescribes that the conduct of an investigation into the offence of publicly denigrating the Turkish nation or the organs and institutions of the state shall be subject to the authorisation of the Ministry of Justice, the Ankara 15 th   Assize Court requested prior authorisation of the Ministry. On 28 September 2022, at the eleventh hearing of the prosecution before the Assize Court, observing that no reply had been given to its authorisation request, the Ankara 15 th   Assize Court decided to discontinue the prosecution pursuant to Article 223 § 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision prescribes that if the start of a criminal investigation or prosecution depends upon a condition and it is understood that the condition has not been met, a decision to stay the proceedings shall be taken with a view to awaiting the fulfilment of the condition. The Assize Court’s decision also stated that if the Ministry’s authorisation was to be given at a later date, the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be resumed with a new case number. The applicant objected to the decision arguing that it would subject him to a constant threat of criminal proceedings under Article 301 of the Criminal Code, and therefore, a decision to acquit him should have been taken instead. On 16 November 2022 the Ankara 16 th Assize Court rejected the applicant’s objection against the decision. On 29 February 2024 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the applicant’s individual application in which he had complained about an interference with his freedom of expression. The court found that the applicant’s complaints were manifestly ill-founded. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains before the Court that the domestic courts’ decisions on the discontinuance of the prosecution entails a constant threat of criminal proceedings under Article   301 of the Criminal Code that could be launched against him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention on account of the criminal proceedings brought against him and the allegedly continuing threat of criminal proceedings under Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code ( Dilipak v. Turkey , no.   29680/05, §§ 44-47, 15   September 2015; Döner and Others v. Turkey, no.   29994/02, §§   85-88, 7 March 2017; Ali Gürbüz v.   Turkey, nos.   52497/08 and 6 others, §§ 59-69, 12 March 2019; and Kaboğlu and Oran v.   Turkey   (no.   2) , no.   36944/07, §§ 105-16, 20   October 2020)?   2.     If so, was this interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention ( Altuğ Taner Akçam v. Turkey , no. 27520/07, §§ 87-96, 25   October 2011, and Fatih Taş v. Turkey (no. 5) , no. 6810/09, §§   28-40, 4   September 2018)?