Communicated on 24 August 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 3643/08 İnci Zeynep KÖSEBALABAN (GRAF ) against Turkey lodged on 7 January 2008

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a Turkish and German national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Germany. The application concerns the applicant ’ s alleged ill ‑ treatment during her arrest, the alleged breach of her right to freedom of expression on account of her criminal convictions (under section 7 § 2 of the Preventio n of Terrorism Act and Articles 215 and 301 of the Criminal Code) and disciplinary sanctions imposed on her in prison and the alleged breach of her right to a fair trial on account of the alleged failure of the authorities to notify her to first-instance judgments given in her respect. T he applicant relies on Articles 3 , 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has th ere been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant during her arrest? What is the outcome of the investigation initiated by the Diyarbak ı r public prosecutor into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment (investigation no. 2007/8350)?

The Government are invited to a send a copy of all documents relevant to the applicant ’ s allegation of ill-treatment, including the document showing the notification of the decisions/judgments to the applicant, if there has been a decision/judgment.

2. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to access to court, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular,

a. Was the applicant notified of the judgment of the 5 th Chamber of the Diyarbak ı r Assize Court dated 15 April 2008 (case no. 2007/552 – decision no. 2008/128)?

b. Was the applicant notified of the judgment of the 22 nd Chamber of the Ankara Criminal Court d ated 10 February 2009 (case no. 2007/841 – decision no. 2009/114)? What is the legal framework governing notification of first-instance judgments to persons detained in prison? What is the relevance of the decision of the 22 nd Chamber of the Ankara Criminal Court dated 23 February 2010 in this respect?

3. Has th ere been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s criminal convictions by the judgments of the 5 th Chamber of the Diyarbak ı r Assize Court dated 15 April 2008 and of the 22 nd Chamber of the Ankara Criminal Court dated 10 February 2009?

The Government are invited to submit a copy of all documents related to case no. 2007/552 before the 5 th Chamber of the Diyarbak ı r Assize Court and case no. 2007/841 before the 22 nd Chamber of the Ankara Criminal Court.

4. Has th ere been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s cr iminal conviction under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act by the judgment of the 5 th Chamber of the Diyarbak ı r Assize Co urt dated 17 May 2007 (case no. 2007/196 – decision no. 2007/200)?

The Government are invited to submit a copy of all documents relating to case no. 2007/196.

4. Has th ere been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s cr iminal conviction under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act by the judgment of the 11 th Chamber of the Ankara Assize Court da ted 10 September 2009 (case no. 2009/226 – decision no. 2009/265)?

The Government are invited to submit a copy of all documents relating to case no. 2009/226.

5. H as there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicant by the Prison Di sciplinary Board decisions nos. 2007/35 and 2007/55?

If so, was that interference prescribed by law and nec essary in terms of Article 10 § 2?