6.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, he was the owner and editor-in-chief of a publishing house, Aram Basım ve Yayıncılık. 7.  In August 2003 the applicant’s company published a book entitled Patika – Gerilla Anıları IV (“The Path – Guerrilla Memoirs IV”, hereinafter “the book”). The editor of the book was a certain B.K. The 326-page book consisted of the memoirs of seventeen members of the PKK[1]. The authors of the memoirs described their lives in the PKK camps, in rural areas in both Turkey and Iraq, armed clashes with the Turkish security forces, and their ideology and opinions regarding the situation in Turkey. 8.  In September 2003 the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court launched an investigation into the book. On 30 September 2003 he asked that court to order the seizure of copies of the book on the grounds that certain passages on pages 7, 19, 23, 81, 106‑114, 139, 147, 152, 157-177, 203, 273, 277, 317, 321 contained propaganda in favour of the PKK. 9.  On the same day a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court made an interim order for the seizure of copies of the book. The judge considered that the passages referred to by the public prosecutor incited the use of methods of violence and terror, and thus constituted propaganda in favour of the PKK. On 10 October 2003 an application by the applicant to set aside the order of 30 September 2003 was rejected. 10.  On 14 October 2003 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). The public prosecutor cited a number of passages from pages 7, 19, 23, 81, 106-114, 139, 147, 152, 157-177, 203, 273, 277, 317, 321, and claimed that in those passages members of the PKK were depicted as heroes, and their acts and activities were praised. 11.  On 26 March 2004 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and a fine. In its judgment, the court referred to a number of passages on pages 19, 21, 81, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 134, 135, 139, 147, 163, 189, 197, 203, 273, 274, 277, 317 and 321, and considered that those passages constituted propaganda in favour of the PKK. 12.  On 7 October 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance judgment holding that the first-instance court should consider the provisions of the new Press Act (Law no. 5187) which had entered into force on 26 June 2004. It then remitted the case file to the Istanbul Assize Court, since, in the meantime, state security courts had been abolished. 13.  On 22 July 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court held that it did not have jurisdiction over the case and sent the file to the Beyoğlu Criminal Court. 14.  On 5 July 2006 the Beyoğlu Criminal Court also ruled that it lacked jurisdiction. 15.  On 19 October 2006 the Court of Cassation decided that the Istanbul Assize Court had jurisdiction over the case and sent the case file to that court. 16.  On 29 June 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court once again convicted the applicant as charged. The court sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment and a fine of 416 Turkish liras (TRY). In its judgment, the court held:
“On the basis of the examination of the book in its entirety, it has been observed that the book depicts the activities of members of the PKK-KADEK, the terrorist organisation, and their so-called impressions of the clashes between them and members of the security forces. The book consists of different chapters written by different people. The preface to the book contains the following:
‘Our president Apo[2] states that the outcome of the war is very valuable ... While the history written and life created by bullets drip off pens, guerrillas go beyond the faraway corners of our land with their bags on the backs and their weapons in their hands ... We smile with a picture of war and, with a song, we add new [people] to those who have left us ...’
On page 160, it is stated:
‘We had to change the Anatolian People’s Army for Emancipation in accordance with the needs of the Anatolian people. They did not know us as members of the PKK, and we were not established there. If we went there as the PKK, we could not win their hearts. Therefore, when we first arrived in the Black Sea region, we used the name Anatolian People’s Army for Emancipation. Some people told us that they had never heard of our organisation, and they thought that we were a very good one. Some had difficulties, as they suspected us to be the PKK. We could not explicitly say that we were PKK members. Our president [Abdullah Öcalan] stated that he knew the people of the Black Sea, and advised us to raise consciousness through our attitudes and actions first, and then to tell them that we were PKK members, after they trusted us ...’
On pages 106 and 107, it is stated:
‘... I shared my joy with them by saying “Friends, four vehicles belonging to the enemy were destroyed. They were burned.” That day I forgot about my sleeplessness. I did not think about my tiredness, hunger or thirst as much as I had done before. I had only one wish: engaging in a clash and getting in a good shot with my weapon, which I had not used, although I had had it with me for long time.’
‘... [He asked] “My friend, is this your first [armed] clash?” I said “yes.” “[Armed] clashes are nice, aren’t they?” “Yes, they are.”‘” 17.  The Istanbul Assize Court considered that the above-mentioned passages and certain other passages on pages 19, 21, 81, 105, 108, 110, 113, 114, 134, 135, 139, 147, 163, 189, 197, 203, 273, 274, 277, 317 and 321 praised the armed clashes between PKK militants and the security forces, and those militants’ acts. As a result, the court found that the book did not have any literary value. According to the assize court, the publisher had not aimed to publish a book of memoirs, but had had the intention of disseminating propaganda inciting the terrorist organisation and its militants to violence or other methods of terrorism. 18.  On 2 February 2010 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 29 June 2007 on the ground that a pre-payment notice had not been served on the applicant in accordance with section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and Article 75 of the Criminal Code. 19.  On 8 April 2011 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the applicant, since the prosecution was time‑barred.