CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 juin 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s34A6F468 { margin-left:31.82pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sAA807A7B { margin-left:31.82pt; text-align:left; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   335 16.6.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Seven Chamber judgments concerning Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1]   Ergin v. Turkey (nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) (applications nos. 48944/99, 49566/99, 50691/99, 63733/00 and 63925/00) and Ergin and Keskin (nos. 1 and 2) (nos. 50273/99 and 63926/00)   In each case the Court held unanimously that there had been   : a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the aggregate sum of 14,000 euros (EUR) to Ahmet Ergin for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 to Halit Keskin for non-pecuniary damage, in respect of all the cases taken together. It awarded the applicants the total sum of EUR 11,500 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Ahmet Ergin and Halit Keskin, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1952 respectively and live in Istanbul. At the material time Mr Ergin was the editor and publisher of the newspaper Günlük Emek (“Daily Labour”) and Mr Keskin was the proprietor.   Both applicants were convicted by Istanbul State Security Court on account of the publication of various articles in the newspaper between 2 September 1997 and 4 June 1998.   Ergin v. Turkey (nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) Mr Ergin was prosecuted for inciting the people to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction founded on racial or regional origin following the publication of articles in the newspaper on 2 September 1997, 15 January 1998, 19 March 1998, 26 March 1998 and 4   June 1998.   Two of the articles strongly criticised the Government’s policy on the “Kurdish question”, another contained serious accusations about the security forces, another criticised an article in another newspaper about the “Newroz”   festival by the son of a well-known nationalist, and the last one levelled fierce criticism at another newspaper’s campaign to encourage investment in south-east Turkey and at the Government’s policy on assimilation of the Kurdish people.   In judgments delivered on 14 April, 8 September, 14 October, 5 November and 25 December 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year and eight months’ imprisonment in two cases, six months’ imprisonment in one case and two years in another case, also imposing fines.   Ergin and Keskin v. Turkey (nos. 1 and 2) Both applicants were prosecuted for designating individuals as targets for terrorist organisations on account of the publication of articles on 20 September and 2 November 1997. In connection with the second article, Mr Ergin was also prosecuted for inciting the people to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction founded on racial or regional origin.   The first article consisted of information and comment about new arrangements in the Black Sea region following the appointment of a new gendarmerie commander there. The second contained strong criticism of the Government and other State institutions against the background of topical events such as the celebration of the anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Turkey, the building of new types of prison and the arrest of union-affiliated workers at a demonstration.   In judgments of 16 April and 30 June 1998 Istanbul State Security Court found the applicants guilty as charged and fined them.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications in the Ergin v. Turkey cases were lodged with the Court on 26 May, 16   June, 22 July, 25 March and 25 August 1999.   The applications in the Ergin and Keskin v. Turkey cases were lodged with the Court on 2   August 1999.   Judgment in each case was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , John Hedigan (Irish), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] , Riza Türmen (Turkish), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgments [3]   Complaints   In each case the applicants complained that the proceedings against them had been unfair, in particular because of the presence of a military judge among the members of the State Security Court. They also submitted that their criminal convictions had infringed their right to freedom of expression. They relied on Articles 6 and 10.   Decision of the Court   Article 10 In each of the cases the Court considered that the reasons given by the domestic courts could not be regarded in themselves as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. Although certain passages of the articles painted a negative picture of the Turkish State and gave the content a hostile tone, they did not constitute an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising and did not amount to hate speech; that, in the Court’s view, was the essential factor to be taken into consideration. The Court concluded that the applicants’ convictions had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and had accordingly not been “necessary in a democratic society”.   Article 6 As it had already done in many similar cases, the Court held unanimously in each case that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the complaint concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court. As to the other complaints about the unfairness of the proceedings, the Court reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not under any circumstances guarantee a fair trial to those subject to its jurisdiction; it accordingly considered that it was not necessary to examine those complaints.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.