Communicated on 13 November 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 70107/11 Emrah SARITAÅž and Mesut GEYÄ°K against Turkey lodged on 10 October 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Emrah Sar ı taş and Mr Mesut Geyik , are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1987 and 1985 respectively and live in Tunceli . They are represented before the Court by Mr B. Yıldırım , a lawyer practising in Tunceli .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 5 April 2007 the applicants attended a concert which was performed by a band called “ Grup Yorum ”. During the concert they chanted certain slogans, such as “ Revolutionary prisoners are immortal ” (“ Devrimci tutsaklar ölümsüzdür ” ) , “ Revolutionary prisoners are our hono u r ” ( “ Devrimci tutsaklar onurumuzdur ” ), “ Mahir, Hüseyin, Ulaş; fight until liberation (“ Mahir, Hüseyin, Ulaş; kurtuluşa kadar savaş ”).

On 17 October 2007 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants by the Malatya Public Prosecutor for making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation, the “DHKP/C” (Revolutionary People ’ s Liberation Party-Front) .

On 27 September 2007 an expert report, concerning the content s of a CD , was submitted to the Malatya Assize Court. The applicants alleged that this expert report was never communicat ed to them.

On 6 March 2008 the Malatya Assize Court found the applicants guilty as charged, under Article 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and sentenced each of them to ten months ’ imprisonment.

On 4 July 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court ’ s judgment.

B. Relevant domestic law

A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Faruk Temel v. Turkey ( no. 16853/05, §§ 26-27, 1 February 2011 ).

COMPLAINT S

The applicants contended under Article 10 of the Convention that the institution of criminal proceedings against them and their conviction on account of their participation in a concert and of chanting slogans constituted an unjustified interference with their right to freedom of expression.

T he applicants also complain ed under Article 6 of the Convention that a copy of the expert report obtained during the proceedings was not communicated to them; as a result they were deprived of the possibility of submitting their counter-arguments.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see Faruk Temel v. Turkey , no. 16853/05, 1 February 2011)?

2. Were the applicants afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, as required by Article 6 § § 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention?

In particular, was the principle of equality of arms , as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complied with as regards the alleged non ‑ communication of the report concerning the contents of the CD to the applicant?