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

Information

  • Judgment date: 2020-11-10
  • Communication date: 2017-01-16
  • Application number(s): 45975/12
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 10, 10-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
    Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage
    Just satisfaction)
    Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
    Just satisfaction)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.943757
  • 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 Halil İmrek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Adana.
He is represented before the Court by Ms Y. İmrek Koluaçık, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, the applicant was the provincial secretary of the Labour Party (Emek Partisi) (EMEP) in Adana.
On 18 and 19 March 2006 the applicant participated in Newroz celebrations in Adana and Osmaniye, respectively.
In Osmaniye, the applicant made a speech to the participants of the celebrations, while in Adana he was a member of the event’s organising committee.
On 24 April 2006 the applicant was detained on remand following an investigation into his participation in the Newroz celebration in Adana on 18 March 2006.
On 12 May 2006 the Adana public prosecutor charged the applicant and seven other people charging them with disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no.
3713).
The public prosecutor alleged that the offence proscribed in the aforementioned provision had been committed having regard to the content of the applicant’s speech on 19 March 2006.
As to the Newroz celebrations in Adana, the public prosecutor noted that the crowd had chanted slogans and carried posters and banners praising the PKK and its leader.
He further noted that the accused, that is to say the members of the celebration’s organising committee, had failed to prevent the crowd from committing the aforementioned acts.
The Adana public prosecutor alleged that by remaining passive in the face of such acts at the meeting, the accused had committed the offence proscribed by section 7(2) of the law.
The Adana public prosecutor relied, inter alia, on a CD-ROM containing the police video recording of the celebrations in Adana, photographs and reports on the examination of police video‐recordings.
According to the police’s report on their video-recording of 19 March 2006, the applicant had stated during his speech that it was necessary to show solidarity with the PKK and the Kurdish people.
On 13 July 2006 the applicant was released pending trial.
During the criminal proceedings before the Adana Assize Court, the applicant submitted that in his speech given on 19 March 2006 he had not talked about solidarity with the PKK, but with the Democratic Society Party (Demokratik Toplum Partisi) (DTP) and that the police report was not true.
During the last hearing, held on 16 September 2008, the applicant asked the court to include the police video-recording of the event of 19 March 2006 in the case file.
The applicant also asked the first-instance court to order an examination by an independent expert of the police video‐recording in question.
His requests were dismissed.
On the same day the Adana Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment.
The court found it established that the applicant had disseminated propaganda in favour of the PKK by stating “one should be in solidarity with the PKK and the Kurdish people”, on 19 March 2006 in Osmaniye, and by not preventing the demonstrators from chanting slogans, and carrying PKK banners, posters and flags on 18 March 2006 in Adana.
On 28 October 2008 the applicant appealed.
In his appeal, the applicant submitted again that he had not invited participants to solidarity with the PKK but with the DTP and stressed that his application for an examination by an independent expert of the police video-recording had been dismissed by the first-instance court.
On 16 January 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 16 September 2008.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was convicted on the basis of a police report on the examination of the police video‐recording of the Newroz celebration of 19 March 2006 in Osmaniye which did not reflect the truth.
In this regard, he submits that he was unable to challenge the veracity of that evidence because the court had dismissed his application to include it in the case file and have it examined by an independent expert.
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his conviction and sentence under section 7(2) of Law no.
3713 constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression.

Judgment