ALTUĞ TANER AKÇAM v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 11 had issued a non-prosecution decision in regard to a criminal complaint lodged against the applicant holding that the applicant’s views were protected by his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. 50. The applicant claimed that he qualified as a victim under Article 34 of the Convention because he had been the subject of an investigation and threatened with prosecution for expressing his opinions. He contended that he ran the risk of being directly affected by Article 301 and other provisions of the Turkish Criminal Code for expressing such opinions. 51. The Court considers that the Government’s objection concerning the applicant’s victim status is inextricably linked to examination of the question whether there has been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10, and therefore to the merits of the case. Accordingly, the Court joins this question to the merits and will examine it under Article 10 of the Convention (see Dink, cited above, § 100). 52. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. Nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 53. The applicant complained that the existence of Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code interfered with his right to freedom of expression. He maintained that the mere fact that an investigation could potentially be brought against him under this provision for his scholarly work on the Armenian issue caused him great stress, apprehension and fear of prosecution and thus constituted a continuous and direct violation of his rights under Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. ... 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime ...” 54. The Government contested that argument.