CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 octobre 2013

.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 167 October 2013 Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey - 25764/09, 25773/09, 25786/09 et al. Judgment 1.10.2013 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for offering mark of respect to leader of terrorist organisation (without any propaganda or incitement to acts of violence or terror): violation Facts – In July 2008 sixty-seven letters were sent to the State Prosecutor by various individuals. Some of these letters, which were signed by the nineteen applicants, ended with the following passage:   “If addressing [someone] using the term “ sayın ” is an offence, then I too say “ sayın ”* Abdullah Öcalan, I commit this offence and I denounce myself.” The applicants were charged with praising the leader of a terrorist organisation. Before the criminal court, they stated, in particular, that they did not support the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party) or its activities, and that they had no connection with that organisation. They submitted that they had used the term “ sayın ” to refer to Abdullah Öcalan because he was a human being and they respected human beings. They added that if the fact of referring to Abdullah Öcalan in this way was an offence, then they accepted being judged and convicted for doing so. Finally, they submitted that they had no intention of praising a crime or a criminal, but that the use of the “ sayın ” to refer to Abdullah Öcalan was consonant with their freedom of thought. The applicants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment, commuted to a fine of about EUR   689 each. Law – Article 10: The applicants’ convictions were been based on Article   215 of the Criminal Code. In the letters sent to the State Prosecutor, the applicants had sought to criticise the fact that it was considered a criminal offence to use the term “ sayın ” when referring to Abdullah Öcalan. Thus, in the circumstances of the case, they were not uninformed of the impugned legislation, which criminalised praise of a crime or showing respect to a criminal on account of the crimes committed by him or her. They had been able to foresee, to a degree that was reasonable, that, given the content of their letters, criminal prosecution was likely. The interference in issue could therefore be considered as “prescribed by law” and pursued the legitimate aim of national security. As to whether it had been “necessary in a democratic society”, the applicants’ conviction appeared to have been based solely on their use of the expression “ sayın Abdullah Öcalan”, which was interpreted by the courts as a mark of respect and a public defence of that individual and of the terrorist activities carried out by him. Nonetheless, the passage from the relevant letters, as cited in the impugned judgments, did not indicate that the applicants expressed any support whatsoever for the acts committed by Abdullah Öcalan or the PKK, or any approval of them. The criminal court had considered that the letters in question contained neither incitement to violence or terror nor propaganda for a terrorist organisation. In addition, it did not appear from the materials in the file that there existed a clear and imminent danger which would justify the disputed interference. It followed that the reasons given by the domestic courts in their decisions supporting the applicants’ conviction could not in themselves be considered sufficient to justify the interference with the applicants’ exercise of their right to freedom of expression. Consequently, the interference had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. Article 41: EUR 2,500   each in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 640   each in respect of pecuniary damage. * The Turkish Language Institute (Türk Dil Kurumu) defines the word “ sayın ” as follows: “1.   Respected, chosen, dear. 2.   Attribute placed before a person’s name, in oral and written form, as a mark of respect”.   © 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