CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 octobre 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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 211 October 2017 Eker v. Turkey - 24016/05 Judgment 24.10.2017 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Oral hearing Newspaper ordered to publish right of reply in expedited proceedings without a hearing: no violation Facts – The applicant, the publisher of a local newspaper, wrote an article in it criticising the local journalists’ association. The association requested a right of reply. As the applicant considered the text of the reply to be insulting and not sufficiently connected to his article, he refused the request. On an application from the association, the Magistrate’s Court ordered the publication of the reply. The applicant lodged an unsuccessful appeal with the Criminal Court. In accordance with the law, the courts ruled on the basis of the case file, without holding a hearing. Law – Article 6 § 1 (a)     Applicability – Under Turkish law, proceedings concerning the right of reply were not preliminary in nature, but were stand-alone proceedings. Furthermore, although they were conducted before the criminal courts, they mainly concerned the determination of a civil right, namely the right to protection of one’s reputation. Accordingly, Article   6 § 1 was applicable under its civil head. (b)     Merits – The issue to be determined by the courts was first and foremost whether there had been an infringement of the association’s honour and dignity, on which the existence of a right of reply depended. The courts had then been required to examine the content of the reply in order to ensure that it did not contain anything that might amount to an offence and did not infringe the rights of others, and that its length did not exceed that of the article in question. Textual and technical issues of this kind concerning the form and content of the reply could be examined and determined adequately on the basis of the parties’ observations and the documents submitted by them. There had been no issues of credibility requiring oral presentation of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses. Proceedings concerning the right of reply were conducted separately from any subsequent proceedings for defamation. The sole aim at this stage was to ensure a balance between the criticism directed against persons and the redress sought by the latter. Under Turkish law, proceedings concerning the right of reply came under an exceptional expedited procedure in which the Magistrate’s Court had to rule on applications for publication orders under the right of reply within three days. The time allowed for lodging an appeal against the publication order was three days from the date of service, and the Criminal Court likewise had only three days in which to rule on the appeal. This requirement to deal with cases swiftly could be considered necessary and justifiable in order to enable untruthful information published in the media to be contested, and to ensure a plurality of opinions in the exchange of ideas on matters of general interest. News was a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, might well deprive it of all its value and interest. In those circumstances the courts had been entitled to form their opinion on the basis of the case file without holding a hearing. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). The Court also held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   10.   © 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