Communicated on 27 September 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 76960/11 Serap KERVANCI against Turkey lodged on 21 October 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Istanbul. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, she was a documentary filmmaker. The application concerns her conviction f or membership of the MLKP, an illegal armed organisation , under Articles 220 § 6 and 314 of the Criminal Code and the criminal proceedings brought against her with the charge of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The applicant attended to the reading of a press statement protesting the adoption of a new law on execution of prison sentences and filmed the event and the ensuing clashes between the police and some of the demonstrators. The first ‑ instance court considered that the applicant had had the intention of creating propaganda material in favour of the MLKP when she filmed the event and that her acts were committed on behalf of that organisation . The Court of Cassation upheld the applicant ’ s conviction under Articles 220 § 6 and 314 of the Criminal Code. On the other hand, it decided to discontinue the proceedings brought under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act as they had become time-barred. The proceedings against the applicant lasted almost six years and five months. The applicant relies on Articles 6 § 1, 10 and 11 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. 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 Articles 220 § 6 and 314 of the Criminal Code and the criminal proceedings brought against her under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act?

2. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of her complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings? In particular, did the Compensation Commission set up under Law no. 6384 conclude the examination of the applicant ’ s application?

The parties are requested to submit all documents relevant to their replies.

3. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant?