CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 juillet 2010

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; 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 No. 132 July 2010 Aksu v. Turkey - 4149/04 and 41029/04 Judgment 27.7.2010 [Section II] Article 14 Discrimination Publications allegedly insulting to the Roma community: no violation [This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 22 November 2010] Facts – In 2000 the Ministry of Culture published a book entitled The Gypsies of Turkey , written by an associate professor. The applicant protested to the Ministry, claiming that the book contained expressions that humiliated and debased Gypsies. Subsequently, he brought proceedings in damages against the Ministry and the author of the book. The first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim finding that the book was the result of academic research, based on scientific data and examined social structures of Gypsies in Turkey. The expressions at issue did not, therefore, insult the applicant. This judgment was upheld on appeal. Meanwhile, in 1998 a non-governmental association, financed by the Ministry of Culture, published a dictionary entitled Turkish Dictionary for Pupils . The applicant brought civil proceedings against the publisher claiming that certain entries in the dictionary were insulting to and discriminatory against Gypsies. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s claim finding that the definitions and expressions in the dictionary were based on historical and sociological reality and that there had been no intention to humiliate or debase an ethnic group. Moreover, there were other similar expressions in Turkish concerning other ethnic groups, which existed in dictionaries and encyclopaedias. Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article   8: Although the applicant had not been targeted directly by the authors of the book or the dictionary, under domestic law he had been able to initiate compensation proceedings before the domestic courts. The Court therefore concluded that he could claim to be a victim for the purposes of Article   34 of the Convention. As to the merits of his complaints, the applicant had been able to argue his cases thoroughly before the domestic courts, which were in a better position to evaluate the facts of his case. As concerns the book, although the passages and remarks cited by the applicant might seem discriminatory or insulting, when read as a whole it was not possible to conclude that the author had acted in bad faith or with any intention to insult the Roma community. It had been made clear in the conclusion to the book that it contained an academic study which conducted a comparative analysis and focused on the history and socio-economic living conditions of the Roma people in Turkey. Moreover, the passages referred to by the applicant were not the author’s own comments, but examples of the perception of Roma people in Turkey, which the author himself had sought to correct making clear that the Roma people should be respected. As for the dictionary, the definitions provided therein were prefaced with the comment that the terms were of a metaphorical nature. Consequently, the Court found no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ findings that the applicant’s integrity had not been harmed and that he had not been discriminated against. Conclusion : no violation (four votes to three).   © 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