CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 avril 2018

.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 } .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 218 May 2018 Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.) - 24683/14 Decision 17.4.2018 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction of company broadcasting television programmes promoting a terrorist organisation: inadmissible Article 17 Destruction of rights and freedoms Conviction of company broadcasting television programmes promoting a terrorist organisation: inadmissible Facts – The applicant company is Danish. It operated a television channel which broadcast programmes throughout Europe and the Middle East. In 2012 it was convicted for having promoted the terror operation of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) through television programmes broadcast in the period between 2006 and 2010. The domestic courts observed that the PKK, which was on the list of terrorist organisations within the EU, Canada, USA, Australia and the United Kingdom, had committed or intended to commit acts of terrorism within the meaning of the Penal Code. The applicant company was fined and deprived of its licence to broadcast. All appeals were dismissed. Law – Articles 10 and 17: The domestic courts had carefully assessed the evidence before them and conducted a balancing exercise, which took the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression into account. There were no elements indicating that the domestic courts had not based their findings on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts. Regarding the applicability of Article   17, significant weight was attached to the findings of the domestic courts that the one-sided coverage with repetitive incitement to participate in fights and actions, incitement to join the organisation/the guerrilla, and the portrayal of deceased guerrilla members as heroes, amounted to propaganda for the PKK, a terrorist organisation, and could not be considered only a declaration of sympathy. Having regard to the content, presentation and connection of the programmes, the case concerned the promotion of the PKK´s terror operation. In addition, the domestic courts had established that, at the material time, the applicant company had been financed to a significant extent by the PKK . Consequently, the Court held that, firstly, taking account of the nature of the impugned programmes, which included incitement to violence and support for terrorist activity, secondly, the fact that the views expressed therein had been disseminated to a wide audience through television broadcasting and, thirdly, that they related directly to an issue which was paramount in modern European society – the prevention of terrorism and terrorist-related expressions advocating the use of violence – the applicant company´s complaint did not, by virtue of Article   17, attract the protection afforded by Article   10. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ).   © 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