CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 novembre 2006

.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. 91 November 2006 Medya FM Reha Radyo ve ÿletiÿim Hizmetleri A.ÿ. v. Turkey (dec.) - 32842/02 Decision 14.11.2006 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression One-year suspension of right to broadcast, following repeated radio programmes deemed to be contrary to principles of national unity and territorial integrity and likely to incite violence, hatred and racial discrimination: inadmissible   The applicant is a Turkish limited company which broadcasts radio programmes. In 1998 a decision was taken by the broadcasting regulatory authority (Radio and Television Supreme Council) to suspend its authorisation to broadcast on account of comments made during a programme that undermined the existence and independence of the Turkish Republic, as well as the principles of State and national unity and the indivisibility of the nation. The Supreme Administrative Court set aside the decision, which had never been enforced. However, the applicant company again broadcast comments that showed disrespect for the above-mentioned principles and it was issued with a warning by the broadcasting regulatory authority. Subsequently, after the applicant company had broadcast comments considered capable of inciting people to violence, terrorism or racial discrimination, or of provoking feelings of hatred, the regulatory authority decided on two occasions to suspend its right to broadcast for a 30-day period, and finally imposed a ban on broadcasting for 365 days – the maximum penalty, in view of the reiteration of its offending conduct. Inadmissible : The suspension of the applicant company’s right to broadcast radio programmes had constituted interference with its right to freedom of expression. The interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued legitimate aims within the meaning of Article   10(2). As to whether it had been necessary in a democratic society, in view of the nature of the comments broadcast by the applicant the grounds given by the authorities to justify the penalty had been “relevant and sufficient”. Lastly, the interference had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, as dissuasive penalties might prove necessary when misconduct reached such a degree as that observed in this case and became intolerable in that it constituted a negation of the founding principles of a pluralistic democracy: manifestly ill-founded .   © 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