List of ECHR cases concerning Article 10 in Turkey

Last updated

This is a List of ECHR cases concerning Article 10 in Turkey, i.e. ECHR judgements finding breaches of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights by Turkey.

Contents

Overview

Details

Tanıyan v. Turkey

(no. 29910/96) Friendly settlement on 17 March 2005

Necati Tanıyan was the owner of Yeni Politika, a daily newspaper published in Istanbul between 13 April 1995 and 16 August 1995. During these four months, confiscation orders were issued for 117 of the 126 issues published, either under the Prevention of Terrorism Act or under Article 312 of the Criminal Code. The applicant appealed against the orders on 21 occasions, each of the appeals being dismissed by Istanbul State Security Court.

The applicant relied on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention. The case was struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 7,710 for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses. The following declaration from the Government of 4 January 2005 was part of the friendly settlement:

The Court's rulings against Turkey in cases involving measures and prosecutions under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and under former Article 312 of the Penal Code clearly showed that Turkish law and practice needed to be brought into line with the Convention's requirements under Article 10 of the Convention. This is also reflected in the interference underlying the facts of the present case. To that end, section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was abolished by Law no. 4928 and amendments were made by the Government to Article 312 by Law no. 4744. The Government undertake to ensure that the amended Article 312 will be applied in accordance with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention as interpreted in the Court's case-law. [13]

Halis Doğan and Others v. Turkey

(no. 50693/99) Judgment on 10 January 2006

At the material time the applicants, Halis Doğan, Cihan Çapan, Hasan Deniz, Varlık Özmenek, Ragıp Zarakolu and Zeynep Tosun worked for the Turkish daily newspaper Özgür Bakış.

On 7 May 1999 the governor of the state of emergency region (OHAL) issued a decree, applicable with immediate effect, prohibiting the publication and distribution of Özgür Bakış in the provinces in which a state of emergency had been declared, namely Diyarbakır, Hakkari, Siirt, Şırnak, Tunceli and Van. From 7 May 1999 it was forbidden to sell, distribute or store the newspaper in the region concerned.

The applicants complained that the ban on distributing the newspaper constituted unjustified interference with their right to impart information or ideas. They relied, in particular, on Articles 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 7 (no punishment without law).

The issue for the Court to determine was whether the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression had been “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2. It observed that the decision to impose the ban had contained no reasons. Nor had there been any indication that the newspaper in question had been likely to impart ideas of violence and rejection of democracy, or had had a potentially damaging impact that warranted its prohibition. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10. The Court further observed that it had previously held that both the provisions conferring powers on the governor of the state of emergency region to prohibit the circulation and distribution of written material and the manner in which those rules were applied escaped all judicial scrutiny. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13. [2]

Demirel and Ateş v. Turkey

(nos 10037/03 and 14813/03), judgment passed on 24 July 2007

Mrs Hünkar Demirel was the editor of the weekly newspaper Yedinci Gündem (Seventh Order of the Day) and Mr its owner. In June 2002 the applicants were twice fined for publishing in July and December 2001 statements by members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and an interview with a member of its executive committee. In addition the newspaper was ordered to be closed down for several days.

The applicants submitted that their criminal convictions had breached Article 10 (freedom of expression). The Court noted that although certain particularly virulent passages painted a very negative picture of the Turkish State, and thus gave the text a hostile connotation, they did not exhort the use of violence or incite resistance or rebellion, and they did not constitute hate-speech, which, in the Court’s view, was the essential element to be taken into consideration. The Court further noted the nature and severity of the penalties imposed on the applicants. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10. [14]

Ürper and Others v. Turkey

(nos. 14526/07, 14747/07, 15022/07, 15737/07, 36137/07, 47245/07, 50371/07, 50372/07 and 54637/07), judgment on 20 October 2009

The applicants are 26 Turkish nationals, owners, executive directors, editors-in-chief, news directors and journalists of four daily newspapers published in Turkey: Ülkede Özgür Gündem, Gündem, Güncel and Gerçek Demokrasi. Between November 2006 and October 2007, the publication of all four newspapers was regularly suspended by the Istanbul assize court for periods ranging from 15 days to a month. The publications were considered propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation, the PKK/KONGRA-GEL (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation), as well as the approval of crimes committed by that organisation and its members, whilst at the same disclosing the identity of officials with anti-terrorist duties thus making them targets for terrorist attacks. Neither the applicants nor their lawyers participated in the court’s proceedings, and their written objections to the suspension orders were dismissed.

In addition, some of the applicants were criminally prosecuted for the same offences as those attributed to the newspapers. Thus, Ali Gürbüz, who was the owner of Ülkede Özgür Gündem, was sentenced to pay approximately EUR 217,000. Özlem Aktan, who was the executive director of Ülkede Özgür Gündem and Gündem, was indicted twice and Lütfi Ürper, who was the owner of Gündem and Güncel, three times. Hüseyin Bektaş, the owner and executive director of Gerçek Demokrasi, was similarly prosecuted.

The Court recalled that news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest. It then observed that the decisions to suspend the newspapers publications had been taken by the courts and found that that had been a valuable safeguard of the freedom of the press. At the same time, the Court noted that the suspensions of the publications had not been imposed only on selected reports but on the future publications of entire newspapers whose content had been unknown at the time of the domestic courts’ decisions. The Court further found that the applicants’ guilt had been established in proceedings from which they had been excluded. The domestic court had decided to suspend the publications on the assumption that the applicants would commit the same kind of offences in the future. Consequently the suspension orders had had the preventive effect of dissuading the applicants from publishing similar articles or news reports in the future and had hindered their professional activities.

The Court held that less draconian measures could have been envisaged by the Turkish authorities, such as confiscation of particular issues of the newspapers or restrictions on the publication of specific articles. The Court held unanimously that by having suspended entire publications, however briefly, the authorities had restricted unjustifiably the essential role of the press as a public watch-dog in a democratic society, in violation of Article 10. [15]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Court of Human Rights</span> Supranational court established by the Council of Europe

The European Court of Human Rights, also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the Convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The European Convention on Human Rights is also referred to by the initials "ECHR". The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Censorship in Turkey</span> Overview of censorship in Turkey

Censorship in Turkey is regulated by domestic and international legislation, the latter taking precedence over domestic law, according to Article 90 of the Constitution of Turkey.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to Freedom of Expression and Information. A fundamental aspect of this right is the freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas, even if the receiver of such information does not share the same opinions or views as the provider.

Von Hannover v Germany [2004] was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 2004. The Court ruled that German law breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Latvian Human Rights Committee</span>

Latvian Human Rights Committee is a non-governmental human rights organization in Latvia. It is a member of international human rights and anti-racism NGOs FIDH, AEDH. Co-chairpersons of LHRC are Vladimir Buzayev and Natalia Yolkina. According to the authors of the study "Ethnopolitics in Latvia", former CBSS Commissioner on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Ole Espersen "had visited LHRC various times and had used mostly the data of that organisation in his views on Latvia".

Lautsi v. Italy was a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights, which, on 18 March 2011, ruled that the requirement in Italian law that crucifixes be displayed in classrooms of schools does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

Vogt v. Germany (1996) 21 EHRR 205, (17851/91) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 1995. The case concerned a Mrs. Vogt who was suspended from her teaching job at a public secondary school because of her past membership in the German Communist Party. The ECHR ruled that this application of Berufsverbot violated provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights relating to freedom of expression and freedom of association.

Özgür Gündem was an Istanbul-based daily Turkish language newspaper, mainly read by Kurds. Launched in May 1992, the newspaper was known for its extensive reporting on the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, and was regularly accused of making propaganda for the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Its editors and staff have frequently been arrested and prosecuted, which resulted in multiple publication bans. Since April 1994, the publication continued under different names until Özgür Gündem was relaunched in 2011.

X and Others v. Austria 53 ILM 64 was a human rights case that was decided in 2013 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The case concerned whether the Government of Austria had discriminated against Austrian citizens who were in same-sex relationships because the wording of the Austrian Civil Code did not permit unmarried same-sex couples access to legally granted second-parent adoptions, whereas it was available to unmarried heterosexual couples.

Yeni Ülke was a Turkish pro-Kurdish newspaper. It was founded in October 1990 as a weekly newspaper, and in 1993 merged with the daily Özgür Gündem. The motivation for the establishment for the newspaper came mainly from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and PKK members wrote several columns and articles for the newspaper. The newspaper was soon popular and had a wide readership, which reportedly reached 50'000.

Perinçek v. Switzerland is a 2013 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning public statements by Doğu Perinçek, a nationalist political activist and member of the Talat Pasha Committee, who was convicted by a Swiss court for publicly denying the Armenian genocide.

Zakharov v. Russia was a 2015 court case before the European Court of Human Rights involving Roman Zakharov and the Russian Federation. The Court ruled that Russia's legal provisions governing communications surveillance did not provide adequate safeguards against arbitrariness or abuse, and that therefore a violation took place of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

E.S v. Austria was a case held before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case where the court upheld a domestic court's fine on an Austrian woman who had called Mohammed a pedophile.

Azerbaijan has been a member of the Council of Europe, an international organization that focuses on strengthening democracy and human rights, since 2001. As a member, it has attracted attention for holding political prisoners, low implementation of verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and bribing Council of Europe parliamentarians to suppress negative information about its human rights record. In 2017, the Committee of Ministers launched the first ever infringement proceeding against Azerbaijan after it refused to release opposition politician Ilgar Mammadov after a 2014 ECtHR verdict that his imprisonment was unlawful. There has also been criticism of Azerbaijan's continued membership by those who believe its lack of human rights protection undermines the credibility of the Council of Europe.

Bayev and Others v. Russia was a case brought to the European Court of Human Rights by three Russian activists—Nikolay Bayev, Aleksei Aleksandrovich Kiselev, and Nikolay Alekseyev—alleging that the Russian gay propaganda law infringed on their freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 20 June 2017, the court ruled that the applicants' freedom of expression had been compromised. The only dissent was from Dmitry Dedov, the judge elected with respect to Russia.

<i>Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan</i>

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan was an international human rights case regarding the rights of Armenian refugees displaced from former Soviet Azerbaijan because of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Minas Sargsyan on 11 August 2006. He was forced to flee his home in the village of Gulistan in Shahumyan region of former Soviet Azerbaijan, together with his family, because of the Azerbaijani bombardments of the village and was not allowed to return and unable to get any compensation from the Azerbaijani authorities. Even though the applicant passed away in 2009, as did his widow, Lena Sargsyan, in 2014, his children, Vladimir and Tsovinar Sargsyan, represented him in court to continue the proceedings.

References

  1. ↑ bianet, ECHR Fines Turkey on "Freedom of Expression"
  2. 1 2 For the full text of the verdict in French see HUDOC, search page of the ECtHR; accessed on 30 October 2012
  3. ↑ http://www.5rb.com/docs/Ustun-v-Turkey%20ECHR%2010%20May%202007.pdf%5B%5D
  4. ↑ LTD., KETSE. "USTUN v. TURKEY" . Retrieved 21 August 2016.
  5. ↑ "ECHR: KAYASU v. TURKEY · Article 19" . Retrieved 21 August 2016.
  6. ↑ "ECHR VERDICT: ECHR Orders Turkey to Pay Damages to 9 Publications" . Retrieved 21 August 2016.
  7. ↑ admin. "ECHR decision in Akdas v. Turkey (no 41056/04) - CyberLaw Blog" . Retrieved 21 August 2016.
  8. ↑ "ECHR : Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayinciligi A.S. V. Turkey (No. 2) Publication : [not yet received]". Archived from the original on 2013-06-15. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
  9. ↑ "ECHR orders Turkey to compensate journalists - IFEX". 15 July 2010. Retrieved 21 August 2016.
  10. ↑ "HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights" . Retrieved 21 August 2016.
  11. ↑ Contributor, Guest (16 January 2013). "Turkish block on Google site breached Article 10 rights, rules Strasbourg" . Retrieved 21 August 2016.{{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  12. ↑ "HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights" . Retrieved 21 August 2016.
  13. ↑ For the fill text of the verdict see HUDOC, search page of the ECtHR; accessed on 30 October 2012
  14. ↑ For the fill text of the verdict see HUDOC, search page of the ECtHR; accessed on 30 October 2012
  15. ↑ For the fill text of the verdict see HUDOC, search page of the ECtHR; accessed on 30 October 2012
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.