CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 septembre 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 56 September 2003 Alınak v. Turkey (dec.) - 39930/98 Decision 2.9.2003 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Member of Parliament prevented by another Member of Parliament from completing a speech in Parliament: inadmissible The applicant was a Member of Parliament, elected on behalf of the SHP party. While he was giving a speech before the National Assembly, when the President had repeatedly ordered him to stop, as the allocated time had expired, an altercation arose with members of another party, including S.A. Claiming that S.A. had used violence to prevent him from completing his speech, the applicant brought an action for damages. The court found against S.A., on the ground that his action interfered with the applicant’s rights to express the ideas of those whom he represented. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. It held that there had been provocation on the part of the applicant and that S.A. was therefore not liable for any damage. At the close of the subsequent proceedings following referral of the case, the applicant’s claim for damages was dismissed. Inadmissible under Article 10: As the case concerned a dispute between two Members of Parliament, the question for the Court is whether the State failed to fulfil its positive obligations. The minutes of the sitting show that the applicant had been authorised to address his fellow-Members for thirty minutes. After exhausting his speaking time, he was enjoined a number of times by the President of the Assembly to conclude. When he exceeded the allocated time, a number of Members of Parliament, and in particular S.A., who were unhappy with the content of his speech, approached the rostrum and requested the speaker to stops. The President adjourned the sitting. No disciplinary proceedings were subsequently brought against either the applicant or the other Members, including S.A.. The State therefore did not fail to fulfil its positive obligation not to disregard freedom of expression and not to take steps capable of infringing that right: 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