CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 juin 2002

.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 43 June 2002 Ali Erol v. Turkey - 35076/97 Judgment 20.6.2002 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for incitement to hatred and hostility: friendly settlement The applicant, editor of a daily newspaper, was convicted of inciting to hatred and hostility. The parties reached a friendly settlement under which the sum of 3,811.23 euros was to be paid to the applicant and in which the Turkish Government expressed the following positions: -The rulings against Turkey in cases concerning prosecutions under Article 312 of the Criminal Code or the statutory provisions on the prevention of terrorism clearly showed that Turkish law and practice must as a matter of urgency be brought into line with the requirements set forth in Article 10 of the Convention.   The interference complained of in the present case was a further example of this. -The government therefore undertook to make all the necessary changes to their domestic law and practice in this area, as already set out in the National Programme of 24 March 2001. -The government also referred to the individual measures set out in the Interim Resolution adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 23   July 2001 (ResDH(2001)106), which they would apply in circumstances such as those characterising the present case.   © 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