Communicated on 21 September 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 30682/11 Hamide YÃœKSEL against Turkey lodged on 29 March 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Hamide Yüksel , is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Izmir. She is represented before the Court by Ms T. Aslan, a lawyer practising in Izmir.

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

On 21 March 2007 the applicant attended celebrations for the festival of Newroz in Buca, a district of the city of Izmir , as one of the moderators. While she was hosting the event, the applicant addressed the crowd in Kurdish and invited them to observe a minute ’ s silence in memory of “ Newroz martyrs” (people killed during Newroz in previous years) and martyrs for freedom and democracy .

On 10 April 2007 the Izmir Assize Court issued a warrant for the applicant ’ s arrest and a search of her residence.

On 11 April 2007 the applicant was arrested at her house.

On 12 April 2007 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge. In her statements to the public prosecutor and the judge, the applicant maintained that she had attended the Newroz celebrations as a moderator and that she had not shouted any illegal slogans. She stated that she had called for a minute ’ s silence in memory of revolutionary martyrs. The investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody following her questioning.

On 24 April 2007 the public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings before the Izmir Assize Court against the applicant and seven other persons, charging them under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) with disseminating propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation and, under Article 215 of the Criminal Code, praising a crime or a criminal. Subsequently the criminal proceedings commenced before the Izmir Assize Court.

On 13 August 2007, at the end of the first hearing in the trial, the first ‑ instance court ordered the applicant ’ s release.

On 21 October 2010 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 of disseminating propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation and sentenced her to one year ’ s imprisonment. The court observed that the applicant had made a speech in Kurdish, that a man had translated her words into Turkish at the end of her speech, and that according to the translation she had uttered the following sentences:

“Welcome. I wish you a happy Newroz . We thank those who enabled us to be where we are today. I invite you to stand to observe a moment of silence in memory of Newroz martyrs, martyrs for freedom and democracy, and those who enabled us to be where we are today .”

The assize court further observed that during the speeches made by the accused, the crowd had chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and its leader. According to the court, the Newroz celebrations had turned into a propaganda event in favour of the PKK and that the speakers had chanted slogans and had incited the crowd to chant slogans. The court also observed that during the celebrations, symbols and banners of the PKK had been carried by the crowd. The court found that the applicant and the other speakers had provoked the crowd and had as a result committed the offence of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation . The court considered that in view of the applicant ’ s conviction under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 it was unnecessary to render a decision in respect of the charges under Article 215 of the Criminal Code.

On 21 September 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgement of the Ä°zmir Assize Court. [A1]

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that her prosecution and subsequent conviction on account of a speech she made during the Newroz celebrations constituted an unjustified interference with her freedom of expression.

The applicant alleges under Article 7 of the Convention that section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 was insufficiently precise to justify her criminal conviction.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention on account of her conviction under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s conviction under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713?

[A1] ITMARKFactsComplaintsStart

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE