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

Information

  • Judgment date: 2019-05-28
  • Communication date: 2018-03-06
  • Application number(s): 69448/10
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 10, 10-1, 11, 11-1, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.63161
  • 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 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 the content of a press statement he made on 25 January 2005 on the anniversary of the enforced disappearance of Serdar Tanış and Ebubekir Deniz, respectively the president and secretary of the Silopi branch of the People’s Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi (HADEP)), in 2001.
At the end of the proceedings, the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant under section 7 § 2 of Law no.
3713 and sentenced him to a total of ten months’ imprisonment.
The court then 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).
It further banned the applicant from participating in political meetings and demonstrations for a period of one year.
On 1 August 2012 the Diyarbakır Assize Court decided to suspend the execution of its previous judgment in view of the provisions of Law no.
6352 of 5 July 2012.
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?

Judgment