CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE138E5D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 5 September 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12461/11 Veysel Kurtuluş ALABAŞ against Turkey lodged on 23 November 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Veysel Kurtuluş Alabaş, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Mersin. He is represented before the Court by Ms R. Kayışlı, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On various dates the applicant along with other demonstrators gathered in Adana and attended the reading out of certain press statements. The Adana Governorship imposed on the applicant two administrative fines of 143 Turkish liras (approximately 73 Euros) each. (The total amount is not clear from the documents in the case file.) It held that Article 32 of the Misdemeanours Act (Law no. 5326) had been infringed by intentionally disobeying the orders issued by authorised bodies with the aim of protecting public order and safety. The applicant filed objections against each of the decisions. On 13 May 2010, 24 June 2010, 5 August 2010, 25 August 2010, 26   August 2010 the Adana Magistrates’ Court dismissed the applicant’s objections without holding hearings by decisions against which no appeal was available, finding that the demonstrations which the applicant had attended had obstructed the flow of traffic. On an unspecified date the applicant paid the requested amounts to the relevant tax department. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant sections of the Misdemeanors Act (Law no. 5326) read: Section 28 § 4 “(...) The court shall notify the claimant of the defendant’s pleas. The court may hear the parties on a set day and [at a set] time, either at the parties’ request or on its own motion. There shall be at least one week between the notification and the hearing day. Both the parties or their representatives shall be present during the hearing. The decision may be rendered in the parties’ absence if they are not present without legitimate reason. This shall be clearly specified in the notification letter. Section 32 “Persons acting contrary to the orders given by the competent authorities (...) for the protection of the public safety, public order and public health shall have an administrative fine of 100 Turkish liras imposed on them.” COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was unable to defend himself in person or through legal assistance, as there were no public hearing in his trials. Invoking Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant further complains that he was sentenced to administrative fines on the ground of his attendance at certain demonstrations, which constituted a violation of his freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.   QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of peaceful   assembly within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention? If so, was the interference in compliance with Article 11 § 2 of the Convention?   2.     Were public hearings conducted during the criminal proceedings against the applicant, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In that connection, did the applicant request a public hearing, pursuant to Section   28   §   4 of the Misdemeanours Act (Law no. 5326)?