SECOND SECTION

Application no. 60389/10 Halit SÄ°LGÄ°R against Turkey lodged on 31 August 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant , Mr Halit Silgir , is a Turkish national , who was born in 1976 and lives in Şanlıurfa . He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Ekinci , a lawyer practising in Şanlıurfa .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 9 September 2005 , the applicant participated in a demonstration organised by the members of the People ’ s Democratic Party ( Demokratik Toplum Partisi ‘ DEHAP ’ ) , in the Viranşehir District of Şanlıurfa .

On an unspecified date, the Viranşehir public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Viranşehir Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction against the applicant, charging him under the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act ( Law no. 2911 ), accusing the applicant of carrying a poster of Abdullah Öcalan during the demonstration.

On 9 June 2006, the Viranşehir Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction found the applicant guilty of the offence under the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act and sentenced him to two years and one months ’ imprisonment, as well as a fine of 375 Turkish Liras (approximately 150 Euros).

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment of 9 June 2006.

On 24 February 2010, the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court ’ s judgment. It served the decision on the applicant on 26 April 2010.

The applicant is currently serving his prison sentence.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges a breach of his right to liberty under Article 5 of the Convention.

Invoking Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention , the applicant complains that he was sentenced to imprisonment and an administrative fine on the grounds of his activities , which constituted a breach of his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of assembly within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention?

2. In the affirmative , was the interference prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of a legitimate aim?