CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 septembre 2017

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 25 September 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 53319/10 Servet UÇAR against Turkey lodged on 30 April 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Van. The application concerns the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section   7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Adana Assize Court convicted the applicant for having disseminated leaflets at the university where he had been a student, in protest of the detention of his friends who had petitioned the university administration and requested that Kurdish language classes be introduced. According to the first-instance judgment, the leaflets in question contained the following expressions: “Long live Democratic Republic” (“ Biji Komara Demokratik ”), “Salutations to İmralı” (“ İmralı’ya bin selam ”), “The solution is in İmralı” (“ Çözümün adresi İmralı ”), “Long live President Öcalan” (“ Biji Serok Apo ”) and “Long live the youth of the democratic rebellion” (“ Yaşasın demokratik Serhıldan gençliği ”). The court suspended the pronouncement of the conviction on condition that the applicant did not commit another intentional offence for a period of five years, under Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması ) . The applicant relies on Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 10 of the Convention, on account of the criminal proceedings brought against him and his conviction under section   7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no.   3713)?