CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 janvier 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 104 January 2008 Albayrak v. Turkey - 38406/97 Judgment 31.1.2008 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Disciplinary sanction of a judge for following PKK-related media: violation   Facts : The applicant was working as a judge when in 1995 the authorities brought disciplinary proceedings against him for, among other things, reading PKK legal publications and watching a PKK-controlled television channel. The applicant denied all accusations, arguing that he believed in the fundamental principles of the State and served it faithfully. He admitted to reading certain biased publications, but solely for the purpose of keeping himself informed about incidents reported in the region. The Supreme Council found the allegations against the applicant well-founded and, as a sanction, transferred him to another jurisdiction. The Supreme Council subsequently repeatedly refused to promote the applicant, given his previous disciplinary sanction. The applicant eventually unwillingly resigned from his post in 2001 and is now practising as a lawyer. Law : The disciplinary sanction imposed on the applicant had undisputedly interfered with his right to freedom of expression. It was based on domestic law and pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. However, as to the proportionality of the interference, the Court found no reference to any known incident to suggest that the applicant’s impugned conduct, including looking at PKK-related media, had had a bearing on his performance as a judge. Nor was there any evidence to demonstrate that he had associated himself with the PKK or behaved in a way which could call into question his capacity to deal impartially with related cases coming before him. Consequently, the Court concluded that, in deciding to discipline the applicant, the authorities had attached decisive weight to the fact that he looked at PKK-related media. Their decision in this respect was therefore not based on sufficient reasons that showed that the interference complained of was “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 5,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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