Communicated on 25 August 2017

SECOND SECTION

Applications nos 56816/10 and 4175/11 Ali BOZAN against Turkey and Ali BOZAN against Turkey lodged on 20 October 2011 and 22 November 2010 respectively

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Mersin. He was the head of the Mersin branch of the DTP (Party for a Democratic Society) at the time of the events giving rise to the present application. The applications concern the convictions of the applicant for membership of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation , under Articles 220 § 6 and 314 of the Criminal Code and for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act on account of his participation in a demonstration protesting the death of a member of the PKK in prison. During the demonstration, the applicant also made speech allegedly praising the PKK. The applicant relies on Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Conventio n and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

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 his right to freedom of assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, on account of his c onvictions under Articles 220 § 6 and 314 of th e Criminal Code and section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act?

2. Was the applicant notified of the written observations of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation? Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the non-communication of those observations as alleged by the applicant (see Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, ECHR 2002 ‑ V) ?

The Government are requested to submit a copy of the document demonstrating the notification of the written observations of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation to the applicant and/or his lawyers .

3. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § § 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention on account of the alleged inability of the applicant to examine witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015 ) ?

4. H as there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005 ‑ IX, and Söyler v. Turkey , no. 29411/07, 17 September 2013)?