CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sBA1DA037 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC9AE5FA8 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4CE664AB { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBACB3D60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 213 16.03.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Görkan v. Turkey (application no. 13002/05)   arrest OF AN ITINERANT NEWS VENDOR AMOUNTED TO UNJUSTIFIED INTERFERENCE WITH FREEDOM of expression   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Adnan Görkan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Aydın. In June 2004, while selling copies of the daily newspaper Evrensel in a café, he was asked for his identity papers by the police.   According to the applicant, after checking with the police headquarters that he was not on the wanted persons list and that no order had been made for the seizure of the newspaper in question, the police officers nevertheless confiscated his ten copies of Evrensel . According to the police, only one copy of the newspaper was taken and the superintendent invited the applicant to the police station for inquiries and an interview, having previously been alerted by telephone that the newspaper was being sold in the café and fearing that this might cause an incident.   Mr Görkan was escorted to the police station. He subsequently lodged a criminal complaint, alleging that his detention in police custody for nearly three hours had been unlawful and arbitrary. The superintendent stated that the applicant had not been held in police custody and had not offered any resistance.   On 9 September 2004 the public prosecutor discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the essential elements of the alleged offence had not been made out, noting that the applicant had complied with the invitation to an interview at the police station and had been released once the checks had been completed. An appeal by Mr Görkan was dismissed.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 10, the applicant complained that he had been unable to distribute the daily newspaper he was responsible for selling because he had been deprived of his liberty.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 March 2005.   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 also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court noted that Evrensel was a newspaper which was published, distributed and sold legally and that the parties’ versions of events differed.   The Court considered that the check which the police had wished to carry out on Mr Görkan at the police station had not been justified, since the necessity of performing such checks for distributors of all legally published newspapers was neither realistic nor established.   The Government’s argument that there had been a suspicion of an offence, in view of the many previous occasions on which the distribution of Evrensel had been prohibited, thus justifying an unlimited police check, was clearly incompatible with the right to freedom to impart information.   Furthermore, the “invitation to the police station”, which could be regarded as a restriction of liberty on account of its coercive nature and had not been based on any plausible or reasonable grounds, had likewise constituted interference with the applicant’s freedom to impart information. The Court reiterated that even a slight interference with freedom of expression could create the risk of a chilling effect on the exercise of that freedom.   Since the interference had not been justified by any legitimate aims or any pressing social need and had therefore not been necessary in a democratic society, the Court held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 10.   The Court dismissed as ill-founded the applicant’s complaint that the Turkish courts were neither independent nor impartial, finding that complaint to be general and imprecise.   Under Article 41, the Court held that Turkey was to pay the applicant 1,800 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   Judges Jočienė and Karakaş expressed a separate opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.