Communicated on 6 March 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 36226/11 Hatice ÇOBAN against Turkey lodged on 18 April 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant, Ms Hatice Ç oban , is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Belgium. She was a member of the Democratic Society Party ( Demokratik Toplum Partisi ) (DTP) at the time of the events giving rise to the present application.

The application concerns the conviction of the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) on account of the content of a speech she made during a conference held on 1 September 2006 in Batman. The applicant was sentenced to two years and one month ’ s imprisonment as a result of her conviction.

The applicant relies on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the admission and assessment of evidence by the courts (see, mutatis mutandis , Kasparov and Others v. Russia , no. 21613/07, § 64, 3 October 2013, and Navalnyy v. Russia , no. 29580/12, §§ 63 ‑ 75, 2 February 2017)?

2. Was the applicant able to exercise her right to take part in the proceedings and to defend herself in person as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?

3. Did the applicant ’ s inability to submit her closing arguments in reply to the public prosecutor ’ s observations on the merits of the case on the day of the last hearing prejudice the applicant ’ s defence rights to a degree incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention (see Zana v. Turkey , 25 November 1997, §§ 66-73, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ VII, and Hanževački v. Croatia , no. 17182/07, § 25, 16 April 2009)?

4. Was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on her behalf, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?

5. Was the applicant able to examine witnesses against her, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 111-113, ECHR 2015?

6. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression, in particular her right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention on account of her conviction under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (see Faruk Temel v. Turkey , no. 16853/05 , §§ 43-64, 1 February 2011, and Belge v. Turkey , no. 50171/09, §§ 27-38, 6 December 2016) ?