Communicated on 5 September 2014
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 17843/11
Süleyman DİNÇER
against Turkey
lodged on 20 February 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Süleyman Dinçer, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Sinop. He is represented before the Court by Ms C. Dumrul, a lawyer practising in Ankara.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a member of the Public Workers’ Union (KESK; Kamu Emekçileri Sendikası).
On 15 June 2010 the applicant along with other demonstrators gathered in front of the branch office of the AKP[1] (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi – the Justice and Development Party) in Sinop, to protest against the draft bill on the Law of Civil Servants (Law no. 657). The group of demonstrators was informed by the police that their gathering was illegal and was ordered to disband for the protection of public order and safety. The applicant and other demonstrators did not comply with these orders and and attended the reading out of a press statement.
On an unspecified date, the Sinop Governorship imposed on the applicant an administrative fine of 143 Turkish liras (approximately 73 Euros), holding that Article 32 of Law no. 5326 had been infringed by intentionally disobeying the orders issued by authorised bodies with the aim of protecting public order and safety.
The applicant filed an objection against that decision.
On 13 August 2010 the Sinop Magistrates’ Court dismissed the applicant’s objection by a decision against which no appeal was available, finding that the Sinop Governorship had prohibited making press statements at the place where the demonstrators had gathered and read out the press statement.
It served the decision on the applicant on 20 August 2010.
On an unspecified date the applicant paid the requested amounts to the relevant tax department.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant section of the Misdemeanors Act (Law no. 5326) reads:
Section 32
“Persons acting contrary to the orders given by the competent authorities (...) for the protection of the public safety, public order and public health shall have an administrative fine of 100 Turkish liras imposed on them.”
COMPLAINTS
Invoking Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was sentenced to an administrative fine on the ground of his attendance at the demonstration, which constituted a violation of his freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention? If so, was the interference in compliance with Article 11 § 2 of the Convention?
[1]. The AKP, which had an absolute majority in Parliament, formed a government.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy