Published on 21 June 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 26469/18 Alperen TEK Ä° NAY against Turkey lodged on 28 May 2018 communicated on 2 June 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged breach of Article 6 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 14, owing to the criminal prosecution and the ensuing conviction of the applicant, who was fourteen years old at the material time, for, inter alia , the offences of sexual exploitation of a person under fifteen years of age and of false imprisonment of a child for sexual purposes, despite the victim ’ s statement that their sexual intercourse was “consensual”.

In that connection, the applicant complains that, even though both he and the victim were fourteen years old at the time of the events and despite the wording of Article 103 of the Criminal Code, which criminalises any sexual activity with a person under fifteen regardless of the gender of the victim, he was perceived as the only offender by the domestic courts and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, in breach of his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of discrimination based on sex. Furthermore, the domestic courts also convicted the applicant for false imprisonment of a child for sexual purposes, holding that the victim who was below fifteen years of age cannot in law consent.

The applicant further complains that, even though he had filed a complaint with the Ankara Batı public prosecutor ’ s office against the victim, the competent public prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings against her, holding that she had not acted with the intent to commit an offence.

In the applicant ’ s view, the domestic authorities ’ approach was driven by their consideration of the male as the one who ravished from sexual intercourse and the woman as the one suffering from it, thereby infringing his rights under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention?

In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with the victim as regards his conviction for sexual exploitation of a child under fifteen and for false imprisonment of a child for sexual purposes? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?