Communicated on 16 January 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 14619/12 Yılmaz GÜL against Turkey lodged on 15 February 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Y ı lmaz Gül , is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Adana. He is represented before the Court by Ms S. Arac ı Bek and Mr T. Bek , lawyers practising in Adana.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

At the time of the events giving rise to the application, the applicant was a member of the Socialist Democracy Party ( Sosyalist Demokrasi Partisi ).

On 21 March 2007 the applicant attended the Newroz (Kurdish New Year) celebrations in Adana, where he made a speech on behalf of his political party.

On 18 April 2007 the Adana public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Adana Assize Court charging the applicant with aiding the PKK, an illegal armed organisation , under Articles 220 § 7 and 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code.

On an unspecified date the Adana public prosecutor amended the charges against the applicant and asked the Adana Assize Court to convict him of 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 his speech.

On 24 March 2008 the Adana Assize Court convicted the applicant under the aforementioned provision and sentenced him to ten months ’ imprisonment. The court noted that in his speech the applicant had referred to Abdullah Ö calan , the leader of the PKK, as “ Say ın (Esteemed) Ö calan ” and had called upon the Turkish military forces to comply with the ceasefire declared by the PKK. The Adana Assize Court considered that those statements had constituted propaganda in favour of the PKK.

On 19 July 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 24 March 2008.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that his conviction and sentence under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 on account of the speech he made at the Newroz celebrations constituted an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 10 of the Convention, on account of his conviction under section 7(2) of the Preventio n of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713)?