CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 novembre 2007

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   840 27.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS ASAN v. TURKEY NUR RADYO VE TELEVİZYON YAYINCILIĞI A.Ş. v.   TURKEY     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgments [1] in the cases of Asan v. Turkey (application no. 28582/02) and Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.Ş. v. Turkey (no 6587/03) .   In both cases the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant in the case of Asan 1,500 euros. In the case of Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.Ş. it held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company. (The judgments are available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   Asan – The applicant, Ömer Şükrü Asan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul (Turkey). He is a writer.   The case concerned an order by the National Security Court in January 2002 for the seizure of a book by the applicant entitled Pontos Kültürü (“Pontic Culture”), published by the Belge publishing house in 1996. A second edition was published in 2000; the book was also published in Greece in 1999. The book was, among other things, the subject of a television programme in which a theology professor accused the applicant of being a “traitor friendly to Greece” and of wanting to reintroduce Orthodox Christianity to a Muslim region. In March 2002 the State Security Court brought criminal proceedings against the applicant. He was charged with disseminating separatist propaganda in asserting that there were still some communities influenced by Pontic culture in the province of Trabzon and the surrounding area. In his defence, the applicant submitted that the passage of his book in question had merely repeated what had been said on many occasions in other works by renowned historians. He also pointed out that the book had been on sale since 1996 without ever having given rise to a prosecution and was now in its second edition.   In August 2003 the applicant was acquitted and the order for the seizure of the book was set aside.   Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.Ş. v. Turkey – The applicant, Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.Ş., is a limited company in the radio broadcasting sector based in Istanbul.   In October 1999 the Radio and Television Supreme Council ( Radio ve Televizyon Üst Kurulu – RTÜK) censured the applicant company for broadcasting certain comments by a representative of the Mihr religious community, who had, among other things, described an earthquake in which thousands of people had died in the Izmit region of Turkey in August 1999 as a “warning from Allah” against the “enemies of Allah”, who had decided on their “death”. The representative had also compared the “fate” of “non-believers”, who were presented as victims of their impiety, with that of the members of the Mihr community. The RTÜK found that such comments breached the rule laid down in section 4 (c) of Law no.   3984 prohibiting broadcasting that was contrary to “the principles forming part of the general principles laid down in the Constitution, to democratic rules and to human rights”. Noting that the applicant company had already received a warning for breaching the same rule, the RTÜK decided to suspend its radio broadcasting licence for 180 days with effect from 8 November 1999. The applicant company challenged this measure in the Turkish courts, but to no avail. It argued, in particular, that it had put forward a religious explanation for the earthquake which all listeners were free to support or oppose.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application in the case of Asan was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 April 2002 and the application in Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.Ş. was lodged on 27 January 2003.   Judgment in the case of Asan was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   Judgment in the case of Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.Ş. was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President , Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   In the case of Asan the applicant complained of the seizure of his book, relying on Article 10.   In the case of Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.Ş. the applicant company complained about the temporary broadcasting ban imposed on it, relying on Articles 10 and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Decision of the Court   Article 10   Asan – The Court noted firstly that the book in question, which dealt with a matter of general interest, took the form of a monograph on a particular field of study. It covered aspects such as ethnology, culture and language and did not convey any political message.   The Court further observed that the seizure concerned the second edition of the book. The first edition, published in 1996, had not given rise to prosecution, although the legislation cited in the seizure order had already been in force at that time. Neither the domestic courts nor the Government had referred to any change in the book’s socio-political scope that could have justified the difference in the application of the law. The only change appeared to relate to the media coverage given to the book and the complaints mentioned in the indictment.   In conclusion, the Court was not satisfied that the interference with the exercise of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been “necessary in a democratic society”. The seizure of the book on the ground that it was separatist propaganda had not met a “pressing social need”. There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.   Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.Ş. v. Turkey – The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the offending comments and the particularly tragic context in which they had been made. It also noted that they had been of a proselytising nature in that they had accorded religious significance to a natural disaster.   However, although the comments might have been shocking and offensive, they did not in any way incite to violence and were not liable to stir up hatred against people who were not members of the Mihr religious community.   The Court further reiterated that the nature and severity of the penalty imposed were also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference. It therefore considered that the broadcasting ban imposed on the applicant company had been disproportionate to the aims pursued, in violation of Article 10.   Article 14   The Court held that it was not necessary to carry out a separate examination of the complaint under Article 14 in the case of Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.S.     In the case of Asan, Judges Zagrebelsky and Popović expressed a joint concurring opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 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. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.