ALTUĞ TANER AKÇAM v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 13 (nos. 3002/03 and 23676/03, ECHR 2009-...), Marckx v. Belgium (13 June 1979, § 330, Series A no. 31), Norris v. Ireland (26 October 1988, Series A no. 142), Bowman v. the United Kingdom (no. 24839/94, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I), the applicant submitted that Article 34 entitled individuals to contend that a law violated their rights in and of itself in the absence of an individual measure of implementation if they ran the risk of being directly affected by it. He pointed out that, in the aforementioned cases, the finding of a violation had not been based on a potential future breach as such, but on the state of affairs existing at the time of the complaint. In each case, the provisions of domestic law had been alleged, by their very existence, to have had a direct effect on the applicants, and therefore to have violated their rights to privacy and freedom of expression. (b) The Government 60. The Government asserted that there had been no interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10 of the Convention since he did not qualify as a victim, and that his complaint amounted to actio popularis. 61. They noted firstly that the impugned legal provision, namely Article 301 of the Criminal Code, had never been applied against the applicant. Secondly, the proceedings in the instant case had not been initiated by the public prosecutor, but as the result of a criminal complaint lodged by an individual. Thirdly, the proceedings in question had been terminated by a definitive non-prosecution decision by the public prosecutor. Fourthly, the latter had clearly stated in his decision that the applicant’s opinions were protected by his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. Finally, the applicant was unlikely to suffer prejudice in the future because certain safeguards had been introduced since the amendment of Article 301 to ensure that prosecutions were compatible with the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. 62. The Government argued that a complaint which consisted of alleging the incompatibility of a national law in abstracto should be inadmissible in the Convention system since this would amount to an actio popularis (see Noël Narvii Tauira and 18 others v. France, no. 28204/95, Commission decision of 4 December 1995, Decisions and Reports (DR). 83-A, p. 130). In the instant case, bearing in mind that there had been no interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, the applicant had essentially requested the Court to carry out a scrutiny, in abstracto, of Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code. Indeed, the applicant’s principal claim, which reads “...That Article 301 is in its relevant part in conflict with and in violation of Turkey’s obligations under Articles 7, 10 and 14 of the Convention :..” had been formulated in such a way that it referred to the notion of “actio popularis”.