Communicated on 14 December 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 62392/11 Seher TÃœMER against Turkey lodged on 29 July 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Ankara . At the time of the events giving rise to the application, she was a member of the Sağlık ve Sosyal Hizmet Emekçileri Sendikası (SES) (Health and Social Service Labourers Trade Union) and a member of the Board of Directors of the Ankara branch of the same trade union. The application concerns the criminal convictions of the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), on account of chanting a slogan, namely “ Biji Serok Apo” (“Long Live Abdullah Ö calan ”), during the Newroz celebrations in 2009 and of membership of an illegal armed organisation under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code on the basis of a number of documents and photographs found in her home and computer. The applicant was sentenced to one year ’ s imprisonment for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK and six years and three months ’ imprisonment for membership of an illegal armed organisation.

The applicant relies on Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge brought against her under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Did the national courts use every reasonable opportunity to examine the lawfulness of the search of the applicant ’ s house and check the reliability as well as the accuracy of the evidence obtained thereby (see, mutatis mutandis , Prade v. Germany , no. 7215/10 , 3 March 2016) ? Were there procedural safeguards in relation to the applicant ’ s allegation concerning the way in which the search was carried out (see, mutatis mutandis , Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009; Lisica v. Croatia , no. 20100/06 , 25 February 2010; Horvatić v. Croatia , no. 36044/09 , 17 October 2013 and ; Layijov v. Azerbaijan , no. 22062/07, 10 April 2014)?

(b) Having regard to the Court of Cassation ’ s case-law on Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 98-100 of the Opinion on Articles 216, 299, 301 and 314 of the Penal Code of Turkey of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) (CDL-AD(2016)002)), were sufficient reasons given for the applicant ’ s conviction under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code (see Vetrenko v. Moldova , no. 36552/02, § 55, 18 May 2010, and Ajdarić v. Croatia , no. 20883/09, § 51, 13 December 2011)?

3. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, or her right to freedom of assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, on account of her conviction under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (see Belge v. Turkey, no. 50171/09, § 35, 6 December 2016?)

The Government are requested to submit a copy of all documents relevant to the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant (case no. 2009/213 and decision no. 2010/28 before the Eleventh Chamber of the Ankara and case no. 2010/7947 and decision no. 2010/11637 before the Court of Cassation).