CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 mai 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 } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 412 20.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Saygili and Bilgiç v. Turkey (application no. 33667/05)     30-DAY CLOSURE OF NEWSPAPER UNJUSTIFIED   Unanimously   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants, Fevzi Saygılı and Nizamettin Taylan Bilgiç, are two Turkish nationals born in 1966 and 1972 respectively and live in Istanbul.   Mr Saygılı was the owner of the daily newspaper Yeni Evrensel , which the Istanbul State Security Court ordered to close for one month in November 2000 for publication of articles found to be in violation of the penal code. In June 2001, while the closure order was yet to be executed, the applicants notified the office of the Istanbul Governor of their intention to publish a new daily newspaper, named Günlük Evrensel . On 22 July 2001 Mr Saygılı ceased Yeni Evrensel ’s publication. The following day he launched the new paper with a new editor ‑ in-chief, Mr Bilgiç, and a new team of columnists.   On 8 September 2001, the police came to the applicants’ printing headquarters to execute the closure order. They found that the applicants had discontinued Yeni Evrensel and started to publish Günlük Evrensel . The police informed the public prosecutor who, in return, concluded that Günlük Evrensel was Yeni Evrensel ’s successor. At his request, the Zeytinburnu Magistrate’s Court issued a warrant authorising the seizure of Günlük   Evrensel ’s two recent issues. The applicants’ objection to the higher criminal court - asserting that Günlük Evrensel was not the other paper’s successor - was rejected. For the following 29 days, the same sequence of events took place. In their objections, the applicants repeatedly drew the judges’ attention to the fact that as Günlük Evrensel had first been published on 23 July 2001 and Yeni Evrensel was not officially closed down until 8   September 2001, it could not possibly be Yeni Evrensel ’s successor. Moreover, Günlük   Evrensel had a different editorial team than that of Yeni Evrensel . The applicants also complained unsuccessfully to the Ministry of Justice.   Meanwhile, the public prosecutor charged the applicants for having breached the shutdown order by issuing a successor newspaper. In December 2001, the Zeytinburnu Criminal Court of First Instance acquitted the applicants, finding that the two newspapers in question were unrelated. The court also revoked the seizure warrants, which had already been executed by then.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on article 10 of the Convention, Mr Saygılı and Mr Bilgiç complained of the seizure of Günlük Evrensel for a period of 30 days. Under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) they also complained that they had not received a fair hearing in the proceedings concerning the seizure of the newspaper.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 April 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   An infringement of freedom of expression was not acceptable unless it was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, which was clearly the case here. In order to satisfy the requirements on Article 10 the measure in question also had to be “ necessary in a democratic society”.   The Court recalled that the closure order and the conviction of Yeni Evrensel ’s editor-in-chief had already been examined by the Court in another judgment and that this conviction had been held to be in breach of Article 10. This made it unnecessary for the Court to examine again in the present case the articles published in Yeni Evrensel . Therefore the only task of the Court was to verify whether the grounds for closing Günlük Evrensel had been relevant and sufficient, and whether the closure had really been necessary. In this respect, the Court noted that the Turkish courts had subsequently realised that Günlük Evrensel was not connected with Yeni Evrensel and had revoked the seizure orders. This had happened too late, however, as the newspaper had not been distributed for a period of 30 days. On many occasions, the applicants had drawn the Turkish courts’ attention to the mistake, but the courts kept on repeating the stereotyped conclusion that Günlük Evrensel was Yeni   Evrensel’s successor without explaining how a newspaper which had been in publication for a period of 48 days at the time of the official closure of another newspaper could be the latter’s successor.   In conclusion, the interference with Mr Saygılı and Mr Bilgiç’s freedom of expression had not been justified, in violation of Article   10.   The Court further held that it had examined the main legal question and that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaints under Article 6.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants 9,000   euros (EUR) for non pecuniary damage.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. 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 Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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.