I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in MART AND OTHERS v. TURKEY.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2019-03-19
  • Communication date: 2017-09-22
  • Application number(s): 57031/10
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 7, 7-1, 10, 10-1, 11, 11-1, P7-2
  • 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: 0.631171
  • Prediction: No violation

  • Inconsistent


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 applicants, Mr Selçuk Mart, Mr Yusuf Bayraktar and Ms Selver Orman are Turkish nationals who were born 1982, 1983 and 1981 respectively.
They live in Ankara.
The application concerns the conviction of the applicants for disseminating propaganda in favour of the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), an illegal armed organisation, under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
In its judgment, the first-instance court held that Komünist Gençlik Örgütü (Communist Youth Organisation), Ezilenlerin Sosyalist Platformu (The Socialist Platform of the Oppressed), a newspaper called Atılım and a periodical called Özgür Gençlik were sub-sections of the MLKP.
It further held that the applicants had participated in demonstrations organised by the aforementioned entities.
According to the judgment, the applicants had chanted slogans in favour of the MLKP and carried banners and flags symbolising that organisation during those demonstrations.
In respect of the second and third applicants, the court further noted that documents and books had been found in their houses.
As regards the third applicant, the first-instance court also noted that she had been an administrator in Atılım and that she had disseminated calls for participation in demonstrations.
The applicants were sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment each.
The applicants allege a violation of their rights under Articles 7, 10 and 11 of the Convention.

Judgment