CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 juin 2010

.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. 131 June 2010 Gül and Others v. Turkey - 4870/02 Judgment 8.6.2010 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction of non-violent demonstrators for shouting slogans in support of an illegal organisation: violation   Facts – In 2000 the applicants were convicted by a State Security Court of aiding and abetting members of an illegal organisation and sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment, after it found that they had participated in demonstrations and shouted slogans in support of an illegal organisation, including: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” and “It is the barrel of the gun that will call to account”. Law – Article 10: The interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression had been prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting national security and public order. As regards proportionality, the slogans had been shouted during lawful, non-violent demonstrations. Although, taken literally, some of the phrases had been violent in tone, they were well-known, stereotyped leftist slogans which could not be interpreted as a call for violence or an uprising. In a pluralist democratic society, tolerance was required also of ideas that offended or shocked. There had been no indication that there had been a clear and imminent danger such as to require the lengthy criminal prosecution the applicants had faced. The applicants had initially been sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and, although following a change in the legislation those proceedings had since been reopened, that sentence and the lengthy criminal proceedings had been disproportionate. The applicants’ conduct could not be considered to have had an impact on national security or public order. The interference had not, therefore, been necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (five votes to two). Article 41: EUR 3,000 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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