Communicated on 10 September 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 40884/07 Mehmet KILINÇ and others against Turkey lodged on 3 September 2007

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s right to notification of the right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent and privilege against self-incrimination before his “preliminary interview” by the police and the subsequent admission by the trial court into evidence of statements made in the course of that interview (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others , §§ 295-311, ECHR 2016; and compare Schmid-Laffer v. Switzerland , no. 41269/08 , § 39, 16 June 2015).

It further concerns the applicant ’ s rights under Article 10 of the Convention in so far as his conviction concerns his involvement in the petition campaign entitled “I, as a native of Kurdistan, consider and accept Say ın [1] Abdullah Öcalan as a political will in Kurdistan”.

QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against himself, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, when did the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention start applying to the applicant in the instant case?

( a) Was the applicant informed of his basic rights such as the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer before his “preliminary interview” by the police at approximately 1.30 p.m. on 2 March 2006 (see, mutatis mutandis , Titarenko v. Ukraine , no. 31720/02 , § 87-88, 20 September 2012) ?

( b) Was the applicant informed of his basic rights such as the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer before his “house search” by the police at approximately 1.30 p.m. on 2 March 2006?

( c) Were there any procedural safeguards in relation to the above mentioned alleged procedural shortcomings? Was the evidence obtained therefrom used by the trial court to convict the applicant to an extent that prejudiced the overall fairness of the proceedings (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others , §§ 295 ‑ 311, ECHR 2016 ; and compare Schmid-Laffer v. Switzerland , no. 41269/08 , § 39, 16 June 2015) ?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention in the light of his allegation that his conviction rested, inter alia, on his involvement in the petition campaign entitled “I, as a native of Kurdistan, consider and accept Say ın Abdullah Öcalan as political will in Kurdistan”?

If so, did the interference pursue a legitimate aim and was it “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicants ’ case, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgment of the trial court, documentary evidence against the applicants, and the written submissions of the applicants and his or her lawyer throughout the proceedings.

APPENDIX

[1] . L’institut de la langue turque (Türk Dil Kurumu ) définit le mot « sayın », comme suit : « 1. respecté, choisi, cher. 2. Attribut placé devant le nom des personnes à l’oral et à l’écrit, en signe de respect. »