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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 August 2025   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 3164/23 and 1914/24 Cengiz TURAN against Türkiye and Nevin ORUÇ against Türkiye lodged on 29 December 2022 and 29 December 2023 respectively communicated on 4 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the criminal conviction of the applicants to a prison sentence combined with a measure of suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment on charges of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation for their acts and statements allegedly relating to the use by them of their freedom of expression, namely their social media posts. Relying mainly on Article 10 of the Convention, each of the applicants complain that their conviction and the subsequent application of a measure of suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment violated their freedom of expression. The applicant in application no. 1914/24 further complains under Article   6 of the Convention that the judgment of the appeal court lacked sufficient reasoning. Each of the applicants also complain under Article 7 of the Convention that their expressions did not constitute an offence.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, due to their conviction to prison sentences combined with a measure of suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment following their social media posts? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   10   §   2? Was the measure of the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment imposed on the applicants prescribed by a legal basis defining the scope and modalities of this measure with sufficient clarity to enable the applicants to enjoy the degree of protection required by the rule of law in a democratic society ( Durukan and Birol v. Türkiye , nos. 14879/20 and 13440/21, §§   58 ‑ 68, 3 October 2023)?