CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 mai 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. 130 May 2010 Cox v. Turkey - 2933/03 Judgment 20.5.2010 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Re-entry ban on American academic for controversial statements on Kurdish and Armenian issues: violation   Facts – The applicant, a US citizen, had worked in two Turkish universities in the 1980s. She was expelled and banned from re-entering the country in 1986 on account of statements she had made in front of students and colleagues that “Turks had assimilated Kurds” and that they “had expelled and massacred Armenians”. She was also expelled on two further occasions. In 1996 the applicant brought proceedings requesting that the ban be lifted, but her claim was dismissed. Law – Article 10: Even though the right of a foreigner to enter or remain in a country was as such not guaranteed by the Convention, immigration controls were to be exercised consistently with Convention obligations. The applicant was precluded from re-entering the country on grounds of her controversial statements concerning Kurdish and Armenian issues, which continued to be the subject of heated debate, not only in Turkey, but also internationally. Opinions expressed on such issues by one side might offend the other, but a democratic society required tolerance and broadmindedness in the face of controversial expressions. Moreover, when, as in the applicant’s case, the interference with a Convention right consisted of a denial of re-entry to a country, the Court was empowered to examine the grounds for that ban. However, from the domestic courts’ reasoning it was impossible to conclude how and why the applicant’s views had been deemed harmful to Turkey’s national security. Nor could it be accepted that “the situation complained of did not fall within the ambit of any of the applicant’s fundamental rights”. Bearing in mind that it had never been suggested that the applicant had committed an offence or shown that she had ever been engaged in any activities which could clearly be seen as harmful to Turkey, the reasons adduced by the domestic courts could not be regarded as sufficient and relevant justification for the interference with her right to freedom of expression. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 12,000 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