SECOND SECTION

Application no. 53146/11 Deniz KÖKEN and others against Turkey lodged on 14 June 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Deniz Köken , Ömer Çiftçi , Cengiz Kapmaz , Mikail Barut and Cengiz Çiçek , are the editor-in-chief, the publisher and the members of the publication board, respectively, of the bimonthly periodical named “ Özgür Halk ve Demokratik Modernite ”.

1. Application no. 53146/11

On 22 March 2011 publication of Özgür Halk ve Demokratik Modernite bega n . On the following day the Diyarbakır p ublic p rosecutor requested the Diyarbakır Assize Court to ban the distribution of the first issue and to order the confiscation and seizure of its copies within the context of an investigation brought against Deniz Köken , the editor-in-chief of the periodical , on the charge of disseminating terrorist propaganda.

On 24 March 2011 the 6 th Chamber of the Diyarbakır Assize Court, without relying on a specific domestic provision, grant ed the public prosecutor ’ s request. The c ourt held that in a number of articles in the periodical, the leader of a terrorist organisation , Abdullah Öcalan , was mentioned as ‘ the leader ’ and his views and ideas were voiced. The c ourt further noted that in the periodical , references were made to some other publications which had previously been banned on account of making propaganda f or a terrorist organisation and naming the s outh-eastern region of Turkey as “Kurdistan”.

The applicants lodged an objection against the decision of 24 March 2011 with the 5 th Chamber of the Diyarbakır Assize Court. The 5 th Chamber dismissed the objection, finding that the decision was in compliance with the legislation in force.

On an unspecified date the Diyarbakır public prosecutor decided that he lacked jurisdiction for the investigation and sent the file to the Istanbul public prosecutor ’ s office.

On 1 June 2011 the I stanbul public prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against Deniz Köken . In his decision, the public prosecutor concluded that the issue in question did not contain any section justifying or praising the methods of terrorist organisations or incit ing to violence or terrorism.

2. Application no. 10976/12

On 29 September 2011 the third issue of Özgür Halk ve Demokratik Modernite was published.

On 30 September 2011 Adana public prosecutor requested the 7 th Chamber of the Adana Assize Court to ban the distribution and to order confiscation of the third issue . The Adana Assize Court banned the distribution of the periodical and ordered the confiscation and seizure of the published copies in accordance with Article 25(2) and (3) of Press Law (Law no. 5187) . The Adana Assize Court found that the activities of the terrorist organisation and its leader were praised and that their propaganda was made in the third issue . The assize court concluded that these acts constituted offences proscribed by the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).

The applicants lodged an objection against the decision of 30 September 2011 . The 6 th Chamber of Diyarbakır Assize Court dismissed t heir appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the respondent State denied them a fair trial when imposing the ban on the issues of the periodical , alleging that in the course of the proceedings they were not given the opportunity to submit their observations against the accusations of the p ublic p rosecutor.

They further complain under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy at their disposal to challenge the lawfulness of the domestic court decision s .

The applicants also complain under Article 10 of the Convention that the domestic courts ’ decision s violated their right to freedom of expression.

They finally complain under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 that the domestic court ’ s decision violated their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possession s .

ITMarkFactsComplaintsEND

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention, on account of the decisions of the Diyarbakır and Adana Assize Courts?