Communicated on 7 January 2014
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 29483/09
Semir GÜZEL against Turkey
lodged on 6 May 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Semir Güzel, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Diyarbakır. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Beştaş and Ms M. Danış Beştaş, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
At the time of the events in question the applicant was the vice-president of HAK-PAR (Rights and Freedoms Party).
On 4 January 2004 the party held its first ordinary congress at a restaurant in Ankara where the applicant was elected by the delegates to act as the meeting chairperson.
On 28 February 2005 a public prosecutor at the Ankara Public Prosecutor’s Office filed an indictment with the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance against thirteen members of the HAK-PAR party, including the applicant, for acting in violation of Section 81 (c) of Law no. 2820 during the party’s ordinary congress on the ground, inter alia, that there were banners in Kurdish and that most of the speeches given by the delegates were in Kurdish.
Before the first-instance court the applicant acknowledged that he had not intervened as the acting chairperson when certain delegates spoke in Kurdish. In this connection, he submitted that, as a founding member of HAK-PAR, he believed that Kurdish should be used in all areas of life, that those who spoke Kurdish were speaking in their mother tongue and that he believed that it was neither legal nor ethical for him to intervene and to force people to speak in another language than their mother tongue. He maintained that, when account was taken of the laws enacted in compliance with membership of the European Union and of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, these speeches could not constitute an offence. In this connection, the applicant considered that the relevant provision of Law no. 2820 was contrary to the Constitution.
On 14 February 2007 the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance convicted the applicant as charged. In particular, the court considered that the applicant had, despite warnings on the part of the government superintendent, continued to allow certain delegates to give their speeches in Kurdish in breach of Section 81 (c) of Law no. 2820. The applicant was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment.
On 23 March 2011 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the ground that the latter had failed to take into account whether the conditions were met to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment against the defendants pursuant to Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On 6 December 2011 the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the other defendants be terminated on the ground that the statutory time-limit prescribed under domestic law had expired.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Section 81 (c) of Law no. 2820 on the regulation of political parties read as follows:
“Political parties
(c) cannot use a language other than Turkish in writing and printing party statutes or programmes, at their congresses, at their meetings in the open air or indoor gatherings and whilst makng propaganda; they cannot use or distribute placards, phonograph records, voice and visual tapes, brochures and statements written in a language other than Turkish; they cannot remain indifferent to these actions and acts committed by others. However, it is possible to translate party statutes and programmes into foreign languages other than those forbidden by law.”
At the material time Section 117 of Law no. 2820 provided for a minimum six months prison sentence for those who committed acts prohibited by Section IV of Law no. 2820. Section 117 was declared unconstitutional and annulled by the Constitutional Court on 12 January 2012 (Merits no: 2011/62, Decision no: 2012/2).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant maintains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that he was tried and convicted because he did not, as the meeting chairperson, prevent certain delegates from speaking Kurdish, their mother tongue, at a party meeting, instead of Turkish. In this connection, he makes lengthy submissions regarding the incompatibility of the relevant law with respect to domestic and international norms, notably the Constitution and the Lausanne Treaty.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Articles 10 § 1 and 11 § 1 of the Convention?
2. If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Articles 10 § 2 and 11 § 2?
The Government are requested to provide the Court with detailed information regarding the application of Section 81 (c) of Law no. 2920.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy