CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 octobre 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 189 October 2015 Müdür Duman v. Turkey - 15450/03 Judgment 6.10.2015 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Applicant’s denial of responsibility for materials which led to his prosecution and conviction: violation Facts – The applicant was the director of a district branch of a political party. In 2000, in the aftermath of a public demonstration, the police conducted a search of the branch premises and found various items related to the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and its leader, Mr   Öcalan. As a consequence, the applicant was prosecuted, and subsequently convicted to six months’ imprisonment for praising and condoning acts proscribed by law. Law – Article 10: The Court first had to determine whether there had been an interference with the applicant’s exercise of his right to freedom of expression, since in the domestic proceedings he had denied any knowledge of the material found in his office and had distanced himself from it. The Court observed that the offence the applicant had been convicted for was indisputably directed at activities falling within the scope of freedom of expression and he had been sanctioned for engaging in such activities, despite his denial of any knowledge of the materials. In such circumstances, his conviction constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression. To hold otherwise would be tantamount to requiring him to acknowledge the acts of which he had stood accused, thus running counter to the right not to incriminate oneself, which is a crucial aspect of the right to a fair trial protected by Article   6 of the Convention. Moreover, not accepting that a criminal conviction constituted an interference, on the grounds that an applicant had denied any involvement in the acts at issue, would lock him in a vicious circle that would deprive him of the protection of the Convention. As to the necessity of the interference, the applicant had been prosecuted and convicted merely for keeping illegal material in the party’s office, an act interpreted by the domestic courts as an indication of support for and approval of an illegal organisation and its leader. However, neither in the domestic court decisions nor in the Government’s submissions was there any indication that the material in question advocated violence, armed resistance or an uprising. The applicant’s conduct could not therefore be construed as support for or approval of unlawful acts committed by Mr   Öcalan and the PKK. Moreover, the domestic courts’ reasoning failed to indicate whether they had examined the proportionality of the interference and the balancing of rights taking into account freedom of expression. Accordingly, the reasons given by the domestic courts for convicting and sentencing the applicant could not be considered relevant and sufficient to justify the interference with his right to freedom of expression. Finally, the Court noted the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicant. In these circumstances, his conviction had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and accordingly was not “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 12,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed. (See also Feridun Yazar and Others v. Turkey , 42713/98 , 23   September 2004; Bahçeci and Turan v.   Turkey , 33340/03 , 16   June 2009; and Bülent Kaya v.   Turkey , 52056/08 , 22   October 2013)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes