CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 }   500 23.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SORGUÇ v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Sorguç v. Turkey (application no. 17089/03). The case concerned the conviction of the applicant, a university professor, by the civil courts for allegedly denigrating a colleague in one of his academic papers.   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 excessive restrictions imposed on the applicant’s academic freedom of expression.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 3,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   50 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Doğan Sorguç is a professor of construction management at Istanbul Technical University. He was born in 1930 and lives in Istanbul.   At an academic conference in 1997, he distributed a paper in which he criticised the selection procedure for assistant professors, without mentioning specific names. Later that year, N.C.A., an assistant professor, brought civil proceedings for compensation against him claiming that certain comments used in that paper represented an attack on his reputation. N.C.A. was later dismissed from his academic post due to professional incompetence and personal values incompatible with the university.   The first instance court found in favour of the applicant by holding that his statements were merely a criticism of the academic system and related institutions. Following N.C.A.’s appeal, the higher court, without addressing his dismissal from the university, found against Mr Sorguç, as it considered that his speech had been an attack on N.C.A.’s reputation.   Mr Sorguç was ordered to pay 3,455,215,000 old Turkish liras (the equivalent of approximately EUR   1,600) – comprising the principal compensation, interest and court fees – for the non-pecuniary damage he was found to have caused to N.C.A..   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 May 2003 and was examined for admissibility and merits together.   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 Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying in particular on Article 10, the applicant complained of the domestic courts’ decisions which found him guilty of defamation.   Decision of the Court   The Court found that Mr Sorguç had expressed his opinion on an issue of public importance, namely the question of the system for appointments and promotion in universities. As he had made his statements on the basis of personal experience, and the information he had disclosed had been known already in academic circles, his speech had presented value judgments susceptible of proof, at least in part. The Turkish courts, however, had not given him the opportunity to substantiate his statements but had instead concluded that they had constituted an attack on the reputation of N.C.A. Thus, greater importance had been attached to the protection of an unnamed individual, including through the payment of rather high compensation, than to the freedom of expression that should normally have been enjoyed by an academic in a public debate. The Court underlined the importance of academic freedom, and in particular academics’ freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they worked and freedom to distribute knowledge and truth without restriction. Accordingly, it held that there had been a violation of Article 10.     ***   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.