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

Information

• Judgment date: 2020-05-05
• Communication date: 2017-01-18
• Application number(s): 9735/12
• Country:   TUR
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 10, 10-1
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.654009
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Mehdi Tanrıkulu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Istanbul.
He is represented before the Court by Mr İ. Akmeşe, 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 owner of the TEVN publishing house.
In 2006 TEVN published a book called The Role of the Kurdish Freedom Movement and the PKK in the Imperialist Process Of Capitalism, written by a certain E.S.
On 17 November 2006 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, charging the applicant, under sections 6(2) and 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no.
3713), with publishing declarations of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, and disseminating propaganda in favour of that organisation.
In his indictment, the public prosecutor noted that the author of the book was abroad and could not be found and that therefore, in accordance with section 11(2) of the Press Law (Law no.
5187), the applicant, in his capacity as the publisher of the book, was responsible for its content.
The Istanbul public prosecutor cited eleven passages from the book and alleged that the offences proscribed by sections 6(2) and 7(2) of Law no.
3713 had been committed via those passages.
On 24 November 2006 the applicant’s trial began at the Istanbul Assize Court.
The applicant argued that the book had been written following a research conducted on political problems in Turkey and that it did not contain any declarations or propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation.
On 23 June 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant under the two aforementioned sections of Law no.
3713.
It sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment, under section 6(2), and to one year and six months under section 7(2) of the aforementioned Law.
The Assize Court found it established that the offences proscribed by the two sections had been committed having regard to the text on pages 11, 69, 82, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 97 and 103 of the book.
In particular, it was stated in those pages that the PKK represented the will of the majority of the people and it had a leading role.
Besides, according to the relevant passages, the PKK had started a struggle under the leadership of Abdullah Öcalan and that the only path that could be taken by it was to fight.
It was further stated that the PKK had a realistic strategy, that it was united with the people and that the leader of the PKK was the leader of the people.
The Assize Court further observed that in the relevant pages it was noted that the PKK was good at creating tactics and strategies and an awareness of warfare and that according to the statements of Abdullah Öcalan the majority of the Kurdish people could be led into the PKK’s freedom fight.
The court lastly observed that in the relevant pages it was stated that thousands of Kurds supporting the PKK had participated in demonstrations in every city in Europe and that the PKK and the Kurdish people were joined together.
The Istanbul Assize Court considered that by containing the aforementioned statements, the book constituted a glorification of violence and terrorism by the PKK and an incitement to violence.
The applicant appealed.
On 10 January 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction under section 7(2) of Law no.
3713, but quashed the conviction under section 6(2).
On 18 October 2012 the Istanbul Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charge brought against him under section 6(2).
COMPLAINT 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.
He submits in particular that the national courts did not take the entirety of the book into account when making their assessments and that the Istanbul Assize Court failed to provide adequate reasoning for its conclusion that some parts of the book constituted an incitement to and a glorification of violence.