SECOND SECTION
CASE OF BAT v. TÜRKİYE
(Application no. 57279/11)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
6 September 2022
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bat v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Egidijus Kūris, President,
 Pauliine Koskelo,
 Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
The application (no. 57279/11) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 August 2011 by a Turkish national, Mr Özgür Bat, born in 1991 and living in Batman (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr E. Şenses, a lawyer practising in Batman;
The decision to give notice of the application to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr. Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice;
Having deliberated in private on 28 June 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns the conviction of the applicant, under Articles 220 § 6 and 314 of the Criminal Code, on account of his participation in a demonstration held in Batman on 13 December 2009. The applicant was sentenced to six years and three months’ imprisonment under the aforementioned provision. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention. 2. On 13 December 2009 the applicant was taken into police custody. On 16 December 2009, suspected of belonging to an illegal organisation, he was placed in pre-trial detention. 3. In an indictment of 13 January 2010, the Batman public prosecutor charged the applicant with committing offenses in the name of an illegal organisation without being a member of it and resisting the security forces by way of throwing stones under sections 23(b) and 33(c) of the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act (Law no. 2911), because of the acts he allegedly committed during the demonstrations which took place on 12 and 13 December 2009. 4. On 8 June 2010 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant of committing offenses in the name of an illegal organisation without being a member of it pursuant to Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code, on the basis of Articles 220 § 6 and 314 § 3 of the same Code and sentenced him to six years and three months’ imprisonment. Finding that there was no evidence in the case file in support of the allegation that the applicant threw stones at the police officers, the Assize Court concluded that the applicant’s conduct constituted the offence prescribed by Section 32 of Law no. 2911 and sentenced him to a total of one year and three months’ imprisonment and decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment. 5. The Assize Court convicted the applicant also for membership of an illegal organisation, as he was considered to have committed a crime on behalf of an illegal organisation and acting in breach of Law no. 2911. The Assize Court established that the applicant had taken part in the demonstration of 13 December 2009, which was allegedly organised by the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organisation) and had been part of a group of demonstrators who chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK. 6. The Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges regarding his participation in the demonstration of 12 December 2009 and throwing stones at police officers. 7. On 20 April 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the above judgment. 8. On 5 July 2012 Law no. 6352, amending various laws with a view to suspending proceedings and sentences given in cases concerning crimes committed through the press and media and similar expressions of opinions, entered into force. On 2 August 2012 the Assize Court, hearing a request submitted by the applicant to benefit from Law no. 6352, decided to reduce the sentence imposed on the applicant by half taking into account the amendment made by the said law to Article 220 § 6 of the Criminal Code and finally sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of three years, one month and fifteen days.

Outcome for Article 11: violation