CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 juillet 2019

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 231 July 2019 Zülküf Murat Kahraman v. Turkey - 65808/10 Judgment 16.7.2019 [Section II] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Criminal conviction for participation in a demonstration denied by accused constituted interference: violation Facts – The applicant was convicted of membership of an illegal organisation (the PKK) and was sentenced to six years and three months’ imprisonment following his alleged participation in a demonstration. Law – Article 11: The Government had argued that since the applicant had denied having taken part in the demonstrations before the domestic courts, he had failed to show how his conviction had affected his right to freedom of assembly. The applicant’s criminal conviction had been indisputably directed at activities falling within the scope of freedom of assembly, and he had been sanctioned for participating in the demonstration. In such circumstances, the applicant’s conviction had to be regarded as constituting an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of assembly. To hold otherwise would be tantamount to requiring him to acknowledge the acts of which he had stood accused. In that respect, it had to be borne in mind that the right not to incriminate oneself, although not specifically mentioned in Article   6, was a generally recognised international standard which lay at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under that provision. Not accepting that a criminal conviction constituted an interference on the grounds that an applicant had denied any involvement in the acts at issue, would lock him in a vicious circle which would deprive him of the protection of the Convention. The Court had already examined an almost identical grievance in the case of Işıkırık v. Turkey and had found a breach of Article   11 and concluded that the relevant provision of the Criminal Code had not been “foreseeable” in its application. There was nothing in the case file that would require the Court to reach a different conclusion in the instant case. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed. (See Işıkırık v. Turkey , 41226/09, 14   November 2017, Information Note 212 ; compare Kasparov and Others v. Russia , 21613/07, 3   October 2013, Information Note   167 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes