CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF4CDACC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt } .s3F717125 { font-family:Arial; color:#339966; display:none } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       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 Mr   Ali   Gürbüz, 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 Istanbul. 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 Istanbul. 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 uyarı”, “HPG, sessiz kalmayacağız” 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 Article 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