Communicated on 17 December 2014
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 62928/12
Veli ARAMAZ against Turkey
lodged on 4 August 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Veli Aramaz, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Kocaeli. He is represented before the Court by Mr H. Çalişci, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
On 30 April 2005 the applicant took part in a television programme called Ceviz Kabuğu. The applicant’s intervention, delivered via a telephone connection, was broadcast live on Flash TV, an independent channel. He spoke in his capacity as an executive member of the Gebze branch of HADEP (People’s Democracy Party).
It appears from the information available to the Court that during the programme the applicant expressed his opinions about the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an armed illegal organisation, and about his Kurdish identity. Following the programme, the Gebze public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against him. On 9 May 2005 the Gebze public prosecutor took his statement.
On 20 June 2005 the Gebze public prosecutor issued an indictment and charged the applicant with disseminating propaganda of an illegal organisation, under Section 7 (2) and (3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Law no. 3713, on the basis of his statements made during the television programme.
On 22 June 2006 the criminal proceedings against the applicant commenced before the Gebze Criminal Court of First Instance. On 5 February 2008 the Gebze Criminal Court of First Instance declared itself without jurisdiction and sent the case to the Istanbul Assize Court.
On 19 December 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant under Section 7 (2) of Law no. 3713 and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment and a fine.
When convicting the applicant, the Istanbul Assize Court held that the applicant had disseminated propaganda of an illegal organisation by declaring that the flag used by the PKK was his flag and represented the Kurdish nation, that the south-eastern region of Turkey belonged to Kurdistan and that he was an assimilated Kurdish citizen who did not believe that the PKK was a terrorist organisation.
On 24 December 2008 the applicant appealed.
On 20 February 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld his conviction.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his right to freedom of expression was breached. In this respect, he maintains that the criminal proceedings were concluded with his conviction on the basis of his statements made during a television programme.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the conviction of the applicant for his statements made during a television programme constitute an interference with his right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy