SECOND SECTION

Application no. 65808/10 Zülküf Murat KAHRAMAN against Turkey lodged on 13 October 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, M r Zülküf Murat Kahraman , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1984 and detained in Ankara at the time he introduced his application . He is represented before the Court by Ms G. Battal Özmen , a lawyer practising in D iyarbakır .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 26 October 2008 the applicant participated in a demonstration in front of the building of the DTP (Party for a Democratic Society) , in the Şahinbey District of Gaziantep. He also chanted slogans in favour of the leader of an illegal organisation , the PKK (Kurdish Workers ’ Party).

On 18 February 2009 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant by the Adana Public Prosecutor on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation under Article 314 of the Criminal Code and making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation under Article 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law No. 3713).

On 13 March 2009 the applicant was detained in Adana.

On 20 March 2009 the applicant was released pending trial.

On 9 June 2009 the Adana Assize Court with special jurisdiction found the applicant guilty of making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to ten months ’ imprisonment. The Assize Court further found the applicant guilty of committing a crime on behalf of an illegal organisation without being a member and sentenced him to six years and three months ’ imprisonment.

On 8 July 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.

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 contends under Article 10 of the Convention that the institution of criminal proceedings against him constituted an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s 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 )?