Events
The applicant is a member of the Central Executive Board of the Democratic Society Party, which was active at the time of the events subject to the application. Due to his participation in the tree planting ceremony held within the scope of the festival organized by Lice Municipality on 28/11/2009, a public lawsuit was filed against the applicant by the Office of the Chief Prosecutor for committing a crime on behalf of a terrorist organization and making propaganda for a terrorist organization. Attorney General’s indictment; He stated that the said event was carried out in line with the organization’s call in order to ensure that the establishment date and place of the terrorist organization were adopted and recognized by the organization’s base and sympathizers. The heavy penal court (Court), which made the trial, decided that there was no reason to be sentenced for the crime of committing a crime on behalf of the organization, although the applicant was not a member of a terrorist organization, and the prosecution was postponed for the crime of making propaganda for a terrorist organization, and the applicant was placed under surveillance for a period of three years. The applicant’s objection to this decision was rejected.
allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression was violated due to the decision to postpone the prosecution for an event he attended.
Court’s Evaluation
In the concrete case, the applicant claimed that the house where the tree planting action was carried out was the house where the establishment of the terrorist organization was made and that he did not know that the date of his visit coincided with the date of the establishment of the terrorist organization in question, and that he attended the event by chance after the feast. The court did not take into account the applicant’s defense, taking into account the previous calls and messages regarding the celebrations intended to be held for the anniversary of the establishment of the terrorist organization, the place and date of the tree planting action, and the applicant’s political personality.
It is clear that the objection made by the applicant is related to the proof of material events and facts and the evaluation of the evidence. It is also seen that the decision to postpone the prosecution made against the applicant is a decision that does not end the trial. In the light of these determinations, no clear error of discretion and arbitrariness were found in the reasoned decision of the Court in disregarding the applicant’s defense in question.
The terrorist organization mentioned in the concrete incident is the perpetrator of the violent acts of violence experienced in every region of Turkey in the last forty years. This terrorist organization is the concrete symbol of the idea that it is necessary to realize an idea with violent methods. The Constitutional Court considers that there is no distance between directly or indirectly praising, supporting or glorifying this organization and encouraging the use of force, violence or threatening methods. The Constitutional Court considers that the action of the applicant is in the nature of praising terrorism through historical and spatial symbols, within the scope of the activities that seem to have been tried to be traditionalized in the village where this terrorist organization was founded and at the time of its establishment.
From the information and documents submitted to the application file, it has not been determined that the event in question was not peaceful and that the applicant was involved in an act of violence. Focusing on whether violence is the criterion for determining whether a statement of opinion incites the use of violence or armed resistance or insurrection would be a far-fetched approach that ignores the challenges associated with the fight against terrorism. Propaganda has an important function in the process of becoming a sympathizer and then a supporter and member of terrorist organizations. Moreover, the terrorist organization that is the subject of the application is the planner and implementer of grave acts of violence at the time of the events and still.
Therefore, the applicant, who is a deputy and whose every move is followed by his supporters, publicly stated that he not only adopted the ideology of the terrorist organization, but also accepted the terrorist organization as a whole without any ideological or methodological distinction; thus conveying the message to his supporters that resorting to violence against the state is necessary and justified. With this act, the applicant caused the danger that the methods used by the terrorist organization would be accepted by others.
the applicant; He was put on trial for more than three years, did not face any criminal conviction for his action, and was put under surveillance for three years. Although it can be accepted that there was a deterrent effect on the applicant due to the existence of the case in question, considering the characteristics of the institution of postponement of the prosecution, it can be said that it is a milder measure compared to an enforceable prison sentence or fine.
Within the scope of all these evaluations, it was concluded that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression met a compulsory need and the interference was proportional to the society’s right to protect itself against terrorist acts.
The Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression had not been violated for the reasons explained.
