SECOND SECTION
Application no. 23072/08
Suna ULUĞTÜRKEN
against Turkey
lodged on 7 May 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Suna Uluğtürken, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Şanlıurfa. She 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.
On 8 January 2008 sixty-five persons, including the applicant, participated in a meeting in front of the headquarters of the DTP (Party for a Democratic Society). The applicant, who was a member of the Viranşehir Municipal Council (belediye meclisi), read out a press statement concerning the problems of Kurdish people and expressed her opinion as to the possible solutions.
On 9 January 2008 the applicant was taken into police custody in Viranşehir on account of the reading of the press statement. The Viranşehir Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant on the same day.
Also on the same day, the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at the Viranşehir Magistrates’ Court, who ordered her detention pursuant to Article 7 § 2 of Anti-Terrorism Law No. 3713 for making terrorist propaganda for an illegal organisation, the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK). Subsequently, the Viranşehir Public Prosecutor sent the file to the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor.
On 14 January 2008 the applicant was released pending trial.
On 25 February 2010 the Diyarbakır Assize Court with special jurisdiction, which replaced the Viranşehir Assize Court, found the applicant guilty of the offence of making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation under Article 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and sentenced her to ten months’ imprisonment. However, the court suspended the pronouncement of the judgment on account of the applicant’s previous good record and the unlikelihood of her committing a further offence.
On 7 April 2010 the Diyarbakır Assize Court dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant and upheld the decision.
B. Relevant domestic law
A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Faruk Temel v. Turkey (no. 16853/05, 1 February 2011).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant contended under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that she had been unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived of her liberty as she had been arrested without reasonable suspicion.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that she had not been allowed to defend herself during the process of the admission of the indictment, which constituted a breach of the right to a fair trial.
The applicant contended under Article 10 of the Convention that the institution of criminal proceedings against her for making a press statement constituted an unjustified interference with her right to freedom of expression.
Under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained of a lack of effective remedies in domestic law in respect of her complaints under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular her right to impart ideas, 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