CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 novembre 2003

.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 58 November 2003 İ.A. v. Turkey (dec.) - 42571/98 Decision 13.11.2003 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for insulting a religion: admissible Article 35 Article 35-1 Six-month period Final domestic decision Date to take into account in calculating the six month period when there is no requirement to notify the decision In 1993 the applicant published a novel dealing with philosophical and theological issues. He was prosecuted for having injured, by means of publication, “Allah, the Religion, the Prophet and the Holy Book”, an offence punishable under the Criminal Code. The prosecutor based the prosecution on an expert report by a professor of theology. In 1996, the regional court found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay a fine. In 1997, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. Admissible under Article 10, following dismissal of the respondent Government’s objections that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies and had exceeded the six-month limitation period; this period began to run on the date on which the applicant became aware of the terms of the final domestic decision and not on the date of adoption of the judgment by the Court of Cassation, notification of which is not provided for in domestic law.   © 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