Communicated on 12 September 2016
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 31605/12
Emrullah CİN
against Turkey
lodged on 24 April 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Emrullah Cin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Diyarbakır. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Beştaş and Ms M. Danış Beştaş, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
At the time of the events the applicant was the mayor of Viranşehir, a district of Şanlıurfa.
On 21 March 2007 the applicant attended the Newroz (Kurdish New Year) celebrations in Viranşehir, where he made a speech in Kurdish and Turkish. In his speech he expressed his anti-war views and spoke favourably of the official recognition of Kurdish identity, and the brotherhood between the peoples of Turkey. He further stated that the unilateral announcement of a ceasefire by the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, demonstrated its dedication to peace. The applicant also maintained that an independent team of experts should examine allegations about the poisoning of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK, in prison.
A criminal investigation was launched against the applicant on the grounds that he had disseminated propaganda in favour of the PKK. On 11 April 2007 he made a statement to the Viranşehir public prosecutor and contended that he had not committed a criminal offence, but had expressed his views in favour of peace.
On 29 November 2007 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır Assize Court, charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), on account of the content of his speech of 21 March 2007.
Throughout the proceedings before the Diyarbakır Assize Court the applicant maintained that he had made this speech in the name of peace and democracy, and had not intended to disseminate propaganda in favour of the PKK.
On 6 November 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant of disseminating propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, and sentenced him to one year and six months of imprisonment. The court observed that the applicant had referred to Abdullah Öcalan as the leader of Kurdish people; talked about the allegation that Abdullah Öcalan had been poisoned; and noted that Abdullah Öcalan had been kept in solitary confinement. The assize court further observed that the applicant had stated that the demands for recognition of the Kurdish identity had not been taken into account by the Government but by the PKK, who had declared a unilateral ceasefire. Lastly, the court observed that the applicant had referred to the security forces’ operations as “destructive operations”, and to Abdullah Öcalan as “Mr Öcalan” or “Esteemed Öcalan”. In the light of the above-mentioned elements of the applicant’s speech, the Diyarbakır Assize Court considered that the applicant had intended to impress and provoke the audience. The court also noted that the audience had chanted the slogans, “Long live President Öcalan” (“Biji Serok Apo”) and, “An eye for an eye, we are with you, Öcalan” (“Dişe diş kana kan seninleyiz Öcalan”). The assize court therefore concluded that the applicant’s speech, made in Turkish and Kurdish, could not be considered to be protected by freedom of expression, and constituted propaganda in favour of the PKK.
On 31 January 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 6 November 2008.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that his prosecution and subsequent conviction on account of a speech he made at the Newroz festival constituted an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as his right to freedom of expression.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy