Published on 15 June 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 13669/23
Birsel ÖLMEZ
against Türkiye
lodged on 15 March 2023
communicated on 26 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s criminal conviction and sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment for having incited participation in a demonstration deemed unlawful by the domestic authorities.
According to the trial court, the applicant had distributed leaflets indicating the time and place of a demonstration. The leaflet in question read: “We are marching to Sur [a district of Diyarbakır]. To prevent the massacre taking place there, we are marching to Balıkçılarbaşı [a neighbourhood], where the co-chairs and elected representatives are present. We call on all our people to join the march from their neighbourhoods in the spirit of Newroz.”
The assize court concluded that the applicant distributed the leaflets in question to shopkeepers, which were considered to be prepared in line with calls made via internet sites and media outlets affiliated with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organisation) to stir up the public and drive them out onto the streets at a time when a curfew was in force in the Sur district. In this context, the assize court considered that the demonstration, which took place on the date indicated in the leaflets, was unlawful as it had been organised without prior authorisation, that it had subsequently degenerated into serious violence, and that the groups had to be dispersed by force. Accordingly, it convicted the applicant under Articles 27 and 34 of the Law on Meetings and Demonstrations (No. 2911), which prohibits incitement to an illegal meeting.
Following her final conviction, the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, which examined the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and found them manifestly ill-founded by way of a summary decision. In doing so, it referred to its earlier case law, in which it had found that the interference with the right to freedom of assembly was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.
Relying on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant complains that her conviction infringed her right to freedom of expression and her right to freedom of assembly.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In light of the general principles emerging from the Court’s case-law (among other authorities, see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 91-92, 100, 108-10, and 140-160, ECHR 2015; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 63-96, 15 May 2014, and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 410-12, 7 February 2017), has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression and/or freedom of assembly within the meaning of Articles 10 § 1 and/or 11 § 1 of the Convention as a result of her conviction?
2. If so, was that interference prescribed by law, necessary and proportionate in terms of Articles 10 § 2 and/or 11 § 2 (see Kudrevičius and Others, cited above, §§ 108-10 and 140-160; Taranenko, cited above,
§§ 72-96; and Lashmankin, ibid.)?
3. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, did the national courts carry out a proper balancing of the interests at stake and provide sufficient reasons in relation to the applicant’s conviction, in the light of the criteria established by the Court’s case-law concerning criminal convictions in the context of the right to freedom of expression and/or freedom of assembly (in particular, see Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526/10, §§ 114-17, 19 January 2016; Akarsubaşı and Alçiçek v. Turkey, no. 19620/12, §§ 32-36, 23 January 2018; Yezhov and Others v. Russia, no. 22051/05, §§ 31-37, 29 June 2021; and Silgir v. Turkey, no. 60389/10, §§ 31-35, 3 May 2022)?