SECOND SECTION

Application no. 8870/09 Hasan BAYAR and Ali GURBUZ against Turkey lodged on 4 December 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Hasan Bayar and M r Ali Gü rb ü z , are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1982 and 1971 respectively and live in Bern and Köln . They are represented before the Court by Mr İ . Akmeşe , a lawyer practising in I stanbul.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

“ Özgür Gündem ” was a daily newspaper the main office of which was located in I stanbul. The first applicant, Hasan Bayar, was the editor-in chief of the newspaper, of which the second applicant, Ali Gürbüz , was the owner.

On 15 March 2004 articles entitled “ HPG ’ den Suriye ’ ye uyar ı ” , “ HPG, sessiz kalmayaca ğı z ” and “ Çekirdek kadro nerede ” (Warning from the HPG (the armed wing of the PKK) to Syria, HPG, we will not be silent, Where is the skeleton crew?) were published in the fourth, fifteenth and fifth issues of the newspaper, respectively.

On 19 March 2004 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants. Referring to the above-mentioned articles, the public prosecutor accused the applicants of having allowed the publication of the declarations of an illegal armed terrorist organisation , the PKK. The charges were brought under Articles 6 §§ 1, 2 and 7 § 2 of the Law on the Prevention of Terrorism (Law no. 3713).

On 25 February 2010 the Istanbul Assize Court with special jurisdiction, which replaced the Istanbul State Security, convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to fines of 24,188,000 Turkish liras (TRL) [1] and TRL 28,378,000 [2] respectively.

The applicants appealed.

On 22 February 2012 the Court of Cassation held that the criminal proceedings should be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred (“ zamanaşımı ” ) .

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant domestic law can be found in the case of Faruk Temel v. Turkey , no. 16853/05, §§ 26-27, 1 February 2011 .

COMPLAINT

The applicants contend under Article 10 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them constituted a violation of their freedom of expression .

ITMarkFactsComplaintsEND

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

1. As the prosecution engaged against the applicants was time-barred, may they still claim to be victims of a violation of A rticle 10 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to freedom of expression, in particular their right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see Faruk Temel v. Turkey , no. 16853/05, February 2011)?

[1] Approximately equivalent to 9.43 euros (EUR) on the date of the judgment

[2] Approximately equivalent to EUR 11.06 on the date of the judgment