SECOND SECTION
Application no. 27421/11
Turgut TAŞKIRAN against Turkey
lodged on 5 January 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Turgut Taşkıran, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1958 and detained in Erzurum at the time his application was introduced. He is represented before the Court by Mr F. Nebioğlu, a lawyer practising in Kars.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 15 February 2009 the applicant chanted slogans in favour of the leader of an illegal organisation, Abdullah Öcalan. On 24 April 2009 he attended the Newroz celebration. On 8 April 2009 he read out a press statement concerning the problems of Kurdish people and chanted slogans in favour of the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party). On 16 April 2009 a press statement was read out by the applicant.
On 1 June 2009 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant by the Erzurum Public Prosecutor on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK, under Article 314 of the Criminal Code and of making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation under Article 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).
On 18 August 2009 the Erzurum Assize Court with special jurisdiction found the applicant guilty of making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to four terms of ten months’ imprisonment, making a total of three years and four months’ imprisonment. The Assize Court further found the applicant guilty of membership of an illegal organisation under Article 314 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to six years and three months’ imprisonment.
On 5 July 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
B. Relevant domestic law
A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Faruk Temel v. Turkey no. 16853/05, §§ 43-64, 1 February 2011.
COMPLAINT
The applicant contends under Article 10 of the Convention that the institution of criminal proceedings against him constituted an unjustified interference with 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 (see Faruk Temel v. Turkey, no. 16853/05, 1 February 2011)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy