CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 juin 2009

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 }   456 9.6.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CİHAN ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Cihan Öztürk v. Turkey (application no. 17095/03). The case concerned the sanctioning of the applicant for having written a critical article about the actions of a retired public official.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the domestic court’s decision ordering Mr Öztürk to pay significant monetary compensation to the former director of the State postal service having limited unduly his freedom of expression.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Cihan Öztürk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Istanbul. He wrote an article in which he criticised the former director of the State postal service for having acted negligently in a project to restore a post office building with historic value. The article, published in May 2000 in a non-profit publication of the State postal service, blamed the ex-director for the dilapidated state and partial collapse of the building.   The ex-director sued the editor-in-chief of the magazine asking the court to order the magazine to publish her reply to the allegations made; the court granted her request. Subsequently, she brought a separate action for damages against Mr Öztürk and the editor-in-chief, claiming that the article was defamatory and constituted an attack on her reputation. In November 2001, the domestic court found that Mr Öztürk and the editor-in-chief had gone beyond the limits of permissible criticism in respect of the former director as they had used demeaning statements which implied that she had taken bribes. The court ordered both men to pay jointly about 500 euros in damages to her; Mr Öztürk paid about twice that sum which included the principal compensation, enforcement costs and interest. In December 2001, he appealed unsuccessfully against that court’s decision.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 March 2003 and was examined for admissibility and merits at the same time.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium) , President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and Sally Dollé , Section Registrar.   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   10 (freedom of expression), Mr   Öztürk complained that the domestic court’s decision ordering him to pay damages had been unfair and had unduly limited his freedom of expression.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   Considering the ironic tone of the article written by Mr Öztürk, and the fact that it had been published in a magazine whose main readers were the employees of the Postal service, the Court found that Mr Öztürk’s aim had been to raise awareness among those employees about the need to protect historic buildings. Therefore, the criticism expressed in the article had to be understood as imparting information and ideas in order to contribute to a debate on a matter of legitimate public interest. Furthermore, regard being had to the satirical character of the article, it could not be interpreted as a serious accusation of bribe-taking. Consequently, Mr Öztürk’s statements ought to have been seen as value judgments which, as a rule, were not susceptible of proof. In addition, they had been based on facts known to the public at the time given that the authorities had already brought criminal proceedings against the former director for breach of duty in the context of that building project.   The Court held that the decision of the national court ordering the editor-in-chief to publish the letter-response of the former director would have been a sufficient remedy in the circumstances of the case. Bearing in mind, however, that Mr Öztürk had been ordered to pay instead a significant amount of monetary compensation to the former director, the Court held that this had been excessive as it could have deterred others from criticising public officials and thus limited the free flow of information and ideas. There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.   Article 6 § 1   The Court held that in view of its findings under Article 10, there was no need to make a separate ruling under Article 6.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.