CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 décembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 14 December 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 33513/11 Ahmet DAĞTEKIN against Turkey lodged on 14 February 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Şanlıurfa. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, he was the deputy mayor in the Ceylanpınar district of Şanlıurfa. The application concerns the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for disseminating propaganda under section   7   §   2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), on account of his participation in the funeral of two alleged PKK members who were killed by the security forces. At the end of the proceedings, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to a total of ten months of imprisonment. The Diyarbakır Assize Court noted that the applicant had waved a yellow, red and green piece of cloth symbolising the PKK and gave instructions to others, proving that he had been one of the organisers of the funeral which had then become an activity of illegal propaganda. The court suspended the pronouncement of the applicant’s conviction on condition that he did not commit another intentional offence for a period of three years, under Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması ). The first-instance court further banned the applicant from participating in public meetings to be held in Şanlıurfa for a period of one year. The applicant relies on Articles 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, or his right to freedom of assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, on account of his conviction under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act?