CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 juillet 2017

.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 210 August-September 2017 Saygılı v. Turkey (dec.) - 42914/16 Decision 11.7.2017 [Section II] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Availability of civil remedy in damages for damage to reputation: inadmissible Facts – The applicant, who considered that two articles published in a daily newspaper had been defamatory of him, lodged a complaint against the editors of the newspaper in question and requested that criminal proceedings be brought against them. The public prosecutor subsequently decided that there was no case to answer in respect of the applicant’s complaint; his appeal against that decision was dismissed. The applicant applied to the Constitutional Court, complaining that the judicial authorities had not protected him from the alleged attacks on his honour and reputation through the contested press articles. The Constitutional Court, basing its decision on the relevant case-law, declared his complaint inadmissible for failure to exhaust the available remedies, on the grounds that the applicant had failed to bring a civil action for compensation against the newspaper editors. Law – Article   8: Turkish law provided that persons complaining of defamation had the option not only of bringing a civil action before the civil courts, but also that of filing a complaint to request that criminal proceedings be initiated. From 2013 the Constitutional Court’s case-law had held that the civil remedy was a “more effective” remedy in this area, and that individuals alleging a breach of their right to the protection of reputation were required to bring an action for damages before the civil courts to ensure compliance with the rule of exhaustion of all remedies. Only then could they bring an individual application before the Constitutional Court. Thus, the effective and appropriate remedy under Turkish law with regard to complaints concerning attacks on the right to protection of one’s reputation was a civil action for damages before the civil courts, and the applicant had been required to make use of this remedy before submitting his complaint to the Court. Conclusion : inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies). (See also Resolution no. 1577 (2007) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, entitled “Towards decriminalisation of defamation”, which called on the member States “to ensure that civil law provides effective protection of the dignity of persons affected by defamation”)   © 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