CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 mai 2007

.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 97 May 2007 Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey - 34797/03 Judgment 3.5.2007 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Ban on Kurdish production of a play in municipal buildings: violation Facts : The applicants are actors in a theatre troupe. The Regional Governor’s Office refused to authorise them to stage a Kurdish-language production of a play. They brought administrative proceedings seeking to have the refusal overturned. The Regional Governor's Office informed the Administrative Court that the play in question was liable to undermine public order, given the criminal records of the actors, who had been convicted or prosecuted for their activities in support of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan). Their case was dismissed and the proceedings ended with the confirmation of that decision by the Supreme Administrative Court. Law : The ban on staging the play had amounted to an interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression. The interference had nevertheless been in accordance with accessible Turkish law and had occurred before the play could be performed in municipal buildings. In view of the sensitive nature of the fight against terrorism and the need for the authorities to remain vigilant in the face of acts likely to kindle violence, the disputed measure had pursued the twofold legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime. The Regional Governor's Office had refused to authorise the production of the play in municipal buildings, simply citing the law without any further explanation. The Administrative Court had held that the refusal could be considered legal in so far as performing the play might have triggered feelings of hatred and ethnic separatism, as “(...) The case file showed that the play in question would be performed in Kurdish [and that] some of the actors in the troupe had criminal records which mentioned crimes against the integrity of the state.”. However, this troupe had already performed the play at a theatre festival without causing any disturbance. Furthermore, no prima facie evidence had been produced in support of the alleged threat to public order. Finally, the reasons the Administrative Court had given for its judgment had given the impression that using the Kurdish language in a theatre production might aggravate the potential disturbance. Accordingly, Turkish law did not indicate with sufficient clarity the extent of the authorities’ discretion in the field of prior restrictions, or the manner in which that discretion was to be exercised, and it failed to provide adequate safeguards against abuses in the application of such restrictions. Especially as there was no evidence that the play would provide a tribune for the spread of violent ideas and the rejection of democracy, or have any other adverse effect that justified banning it. The interference caused by the Governor’s refusal based on the law could not be considered necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 1,000 to each applicant for 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