SECOND SECTION

Application no. 51511/08 Fatih TAÅž against Turkey lodged on 26 September 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Fatih TaÅŸ , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr Ä°. AkmeÅŸe and Mr Y. Polat , lawyers practising in Istanbul.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant was the owner and the editor-in chief of a publishing company, “ Aram Basım ve Yayıncılık ” .

In March 2003 the applicant ’ s company published two different books entitled Tufanda 33 Gün ( Thirty Three Days under Flood) and Dağlarda Yaşamın Dili (The Language of Life in the Mountains).

On 16 August 2003 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant. R eferring to the above-mentioned books, the public prosecutor accused the applicant under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Law on the Prevention of Terrorism (Law no. 3713).

On 7 December 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court with special jurisdiction, which replaced the Istanbul State Security, convicted the applicant of having disseminat ed propaganda about an illegal terrorist organisation under Article 7 § 2 of the Law on the Prevention of Terrorism and sentenced him to two ten month terms of imprisonment, in total one year and eight months ’ imprisonment.

On 25 June 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. Accordingly, the case file was sent back to the Istanbul Assize Court for a re-trial.

After a re-examination of the case file, on 21 October 2009 the Assize Court sentenced the applicant to ten months ’ imprisonment under Article 7 § 2 of the Law no. 3713.

On 15 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

A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Faruk Temel v. Turkey no. 16853/05, §§ 43-64, 1 February 2011.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him constituted a violation of his freedom of expression.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

1. As the prosecution engaged against the applicants was time-barred, may they still claim to b e 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)?