SECOND SECTION
Application no. 31921/09
Mustafa TİMUR
against Turkey
lodged on 25 May 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mustafa Timur, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Hakkari. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Timur, a lawyer practising in Van.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 February 2008 the applicant was arrested in Van. According to the arrest report, a demonstration was organised in the city centre of Van to protest against the cross-border operations carried out by the Turkish Security Forces. The applicant was seen amongst a group of demonstrators, who had been shouting slogans in favour of the PKK/Kongra-Gel, an armed illegal organisation, and was arrested by the police officers.
During his questioning by the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively, the applicant denied the accusations against him and stated that he had not been amongst the demonstrators. He maintained that he had been arrested as he was going to the post office to pay his telephone bill. Following his interrogation, the applicant was released upon the order of the judge.
On 13 March 2008 the Van public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant, charging him with disseminating propaganda for an illegal organisation.
During the proceedings, the applicant denied the allegations against him and stated that he had not been amongst the demonstrators.
On 24 October 2008 the Van Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment. It further decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment pursuant to Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Law no. 5271). Relying on the video footage of the incident, the applicant’s arrest report and witness statements, the court found it established that the applicant had shouted slogans such as: “Erdoğan, murderer”, “Tooth for tooth, blood for blood; we are with you Öcalan”, “PKK is public, the public is here”; “Martyrs are immortal, Öcalan”, “Salute, salute, thousand salutes to İmralı”.
On 20 January 2009 the Van Assize Court rejected the objection filed by the applicant.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his right to freedom of expression was breached. In this respect, he maintains that the criminal proceedings initiated against him for having shouted slogans cannot be considered as necessary in a democratic society.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the prosecution of the applicant for shouting slogans constitute an interference with his right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy