I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in TANRIKULU v. TURKEY.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2021-01-19
  • Communication date: 2016-04-26
  • Application number(s): 33374/10
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1, 5-1-c, 10, 10-1, 10-2
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention
    Procedure prescribed by law
    Article 5-1-c - Reasonably necessary to prevent fleeing
    Reasonably necessary to prevent offence)
    Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
    Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
    No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.923489
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Mehdi Tanrıkulu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Diyarbakır.
He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Özen, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır.
A.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
At the material time the applicant was the executive director of a daily newspaper published in Turkey, Azadiya Welat.
Following a criminal complaint lodged on 25 January 2010, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor commenced an investigation against the applicant in connection with a number of articles published in the 23 and 24 January 2010 issues of the newspaper.
The articles which were in Kurdish depicted the PKK as the Kurdish independence movement and referred to Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the organisation as “Önderlik” (leadership).
On 8 February 2010 the applicant made a statement to the prosecutor.
It transpires from the interview record that he replied in Turkish to all the questions put to him by the prosecutor.
On the same day the prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır Assize Court, charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK/KONGRA-GEL[1] under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no.
3713) and Article 53 of the Criminal Code.
On 8 April 2010 the Diyarbakır Assize Court held its first hearing in the case, in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer.
The applicant refused to speak Turkish and maintained in Kurdish that he wished to defend himself in his mother tongue.
He further requested the appointment of an interpreter.
The domestic court dismissed this request on the grounds that the applicant had a good knowledge of Turkish as he had given all his statements in Turkish at the investigation stage.
The court further pointed out that if he persisted in his refusal to defend himself, he would be deemed to have exercised his right to remain silent.
The transcript of the hearing shows that the applicant insisted on addressing the court in his mother tongue and that his representative interpreted the exchanges between him and the trial judges throughout.
At the end of the hearing, the trial court ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial.
The court based its decision on the strong suspicion that he had committed the offences of which he had been accused and that the relevant evidence had not yet been collected.
It further noted that the offences in question were among those enumerated in Article 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered his detention on remand pursuant to Article 100 of the same Code.
On 12 April 2010 an objection by the applicant to the detention order was dismissed by the Diyarbakır Assize Court on the grounds that the decision was in accordance with the law and procedure.
It appears from the case file that on 20 May 2010 the applicant was released pending trial.
On 20 May 2010 the Diyarbakır Assize Court decided to join the proceedings before it to those being conducted against the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation under section 7(2) of Law no.
3713 and committing a crime on behalf of an illegal organisation under Article 220 § 6 of the Criminal Code on account of four articles published in the 6, 7, 27 and 28 March 2010 issues of Azadiya Welat.
On 21 October 2010 the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges under Article 220 § 6 of the Criminal Code but convicted him of disseminating propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation under section 7(2) of Law no.
3713.
The trial court considered that he had committed the offence on six separate occasions and sentenced him to a year and three months’ imprisonment in respect of each.
The applicant was thus sentenced to a total of seven and a half years.
On 17 January 2013 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, holding that the case should be reviewed in the light of provisional section 1(1)(b) of Law no.
6352, which had entered into force on 5 July 2012.
It stipulated that the institution of cases concerning crimes committed through the press and media and the sentences given therein were to be suspended.
The Court of Cassation subsequently transferred the case file to the first-instance court.
On 8 March 2013 the Diyarbakır Assize Court decided to suspend the criminal proceedings against the applicant brought under section 7(2) of Law no.
3713 pursuant to provisional section 1(1)(b) of Law no.
6352 for a period of three years, on condition that he did not commit an offence through the press, media or other methods of expressing ideas and opinions.
B.
Relevant domestic law The relevant parts of Article 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure and section 7(2) of Law no.
3713 may be found in the cases of Faruk Temel v. Turkey (no.
16853/05, § 26 - 27, 1 February 2011), and Lütfiye Zengin and Others v. Turkey (no.
36443/06, § 27, 14 April 2015).
Article 101 § 2 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides that decisions ordering detention on remand and continued detention and rejections of applications for release must be legally and factually justified.
COMPLAINTS Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his remand on 8 April 2010 was arbitrary as it lacked justification on any concrete grounds.
He also complains under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that he was not informed of the reasons for his detention on remand.
The applicant further relies on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, complaining that he did not have an effective procedure at his disposal by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention on remand.
Lastly, the applicant contends under Article 10 of the Convention that the institution of criminal proceedings against him on account of a number of articles published in the newspaper of which he is the executive director constitutes an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression.

Judgment