CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mars 2026

.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 } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s417B2516 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 13 April 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 3722/22 Cihad AKTAY GÖÇER against Türkiye and 10 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 23 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern various criminal convictions of the applicants for their participation in demonstrations deemed unlawful by the domestic authorities. The applicants in applications nos. 26038/22 and 28300/22 were convicted of participating in unauthorised demonstrations under Article 28 § 1 of the Law on Meetings and Demonstrations (Law no. 2911) and the remaining applicants were convicted of failing to disperse despite police orders, pursuant to Article 32 § 1 of the same law. In addition to the latter, the applicant in application no. 34535/22 was also convicted of the offences of participating in an assembly with weapons (indicated as sling and stones) under Article 33 § 1 of the same law, disseminating propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation under Article 7 § 2 of the Law on the Prevention of Terrorism (Law no. 3713), and obstructing a public officer in the performance of his duties under Article 265 of the Turkish Criminal Code. In all applications, the relevant criminal courts decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgments concerned and the applicants’ subsequent objections to those decisions were dismissed. The Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ individual applications inadmissible as manifestly ill ‑ founded, by means of summary decisions, referring to its earlier case law in which it had found that the interference with the right to freedom of assembly was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. All applicants complained under Article 11 of the Convention, and some of them in addition under Article 10 of the Convention, that their convictions and the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgments amounted to a violation of their right to freedom of assembly or expression. All applicants, with the exception of the applicant in application no. 3722/22, complained in this context in addition under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention of an alleged lack of reasoning in the domestic courts’ decisions. In addition, invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant in application no.   34535/22 complained about the length of the proceedings, which lasted approximately thirteen years and ten months in total, including eight years and two months before the Constitutional Court.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions for all applications 1.     In light of the general principles emerging from the Court’s case law on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly ( see Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 91-92, 100, 108-110 and 142-160, ECHR   2015), has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of assembly within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention as a result of their convictions and the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgments (compare Üçdağ v. Turkey , no. 23314/19, §§   75-76, 31   August 2021, and Durukan and Birol v. Türkiye , nos. 14879/20 and 13440/21, §§   55 ‑ 56, 3   October 2023)?   2.     If so, 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, as required by Article 11 § 2 (compare Durukan and Birol , cited above, §§   58 ‑ 68)?   3.     Having regard to the circumstances of each case, did the national courts carry out in their decisions a sufficient examination and a proper balancing of the interests at stake in the light of the criteria set out by the Court in cases concerning the right to freedom of assembly (see, in particular, Mesut Yıldız and Others v. Turkey , no. 8157/10, §§   35-38, 18 July 2017, and Kemal Çetin v.   Turkey , no. 3704/13, §§   42-54, 26 May 2020)?   Additional question for application no. 34535/22 Were the proceedings in application no.   34535/22, in particular before the Constitutional Court, concluded within a “reasonable time” in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( see Ümmühan Kaplan v.   Turkey , no.   24240/07, 20 March 2012, and Project-Trade d.o.o. v.   Croatia , no.   1920/14, §§   99-104, 19 November 2020)?   The parties are invited to inform the Court of any developments in the domestic proceedings as regards application no. 34535/22 and to provide copies of any judgments delivered after the lodging of the present application.   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 3722/22 Aktay Göçer v. Türkiye 04/01/2022 Cihad AKTAY GÖÇER 1986 Mersin Turkish Erkan ŞENSES 2. 9753/22 Aktar v. Türkiye 12/02/2022 Mustafa AKTAR 1995 Diyarbakır Turkish İbrahim Halil TÜYSÜZ 3. 26038/22 Gürbüz v. Türkiye 13/05/2022 Metin GÜRBÜZ 1967 Sinop Turkish Barış ÇİLİNGİR 4. 28300/22 Karslı v. Türkiye 27/05/2022 Uğur KARSLI 1982 Eskişehir Turkish Barış ÇİLİNGİR 5. 33338/22 Ergin v. Türkiye 15/06/2022 Hakan ERGİN 1994 İstanbul Turkish Fatma GİRGİN 6. 33666/22 Türkyılmaz v. Türkiye 15/06/2022 Soner TÜRKYILMAZ 1993 Eskişehir Turkish Fatma GİRGİN 7. 34535/22 Ulutaş v. Türkiye 06/07/2022 Ali ULUTAŞ 1989 Şanlıurfa Turkish   Mesut BEŞTAŞ 8. 35137/22 Şahin v. Türkiye 15/06/2022 Nevrim ŞAHİN 1992 İstanbul Turkish Fatma GİRGİN 9. 35210/22 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 15/06/2022 Haldun Hikmet YILMAZ 1989 Artvin Turkish Fatma GİRGİN 10. 35237/22 Erol v. Türkiye 15/06/2022 Doğan Barışcan EROL 1992 İzmir Turkish Fatma GİRGİN 11. 36324/22 Turgut v. Türkiye 15/06/2022 Pınar TURGUT 1993 Antalya Turkish Fatma GİRGİN