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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 410 20.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not Final [1] Cox v. Turkey (application no. 2933/03)     RE-ENTRY BAN ON AMERICAN ACADEMIC FOR CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS ON KURDISH AND ARMENIAN ISSUES UNJUSTIFIED   Unanimously   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Norma Cox, is a national of the United States who was born in 1944 and lives in Philadelphia. Having worked as a lecturer at two Turkish universities during the 1980s, she was expelled and banned from re-entering the country by order of the Ministry of the Interior in 1986 on account of statements she had made before students and colleagues on Kurdish and Armenian issues. After returning to Turkey later, she was arrested in 1989 while distributing leaflets protesting against the film The Last Temptation of Christ , and subsequently expelled again. When leaving Turkey after a visit in 1996, an entry was made in her passport stating that she was banned from entering. She has been unable to return to Turkey since then.   In October 1996, the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of the Interior before the administrative court, asking for the ban to be lifted and arguing that the reason for it was her religion. In its submissions, the Ministry maintained that the applicant had been expelled and banned from entering the country on account of her separatist activities against the national security, namely statements she had made about Turks assimilating Kurds and Armenians, and Turks forcing Armenians out of the country and committing genocide. The applicant submitted in particular that the allegations against her had not been proven and that she had never been prosecuted for having expressed those opinions. In October 1997, the administrative court rejected her claim, holding that the Ministry’s decision had been in accordance with the applicable legislation. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court in January 2000. The same court rejected her request for rectification of the 1997 decision in December 2001.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant complained that she had been subjected to unjustified treatment on account of her religion and that expressing opinions on Kurdish and Armenian issues at a university, where freedom of expression should be unlimited, could not be used as a justification for any sanctions. She relied in particular on Article 9 (freedom of religion).   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28   August   2002.   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), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges,   and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   Having regard to the applicant’s failure to submit any reports documenting her claim that reports had been compiled about her on account of her religious activities, and having regard to the reasons for the re-entry ban on her given by the Ministry of the Interior, the Court considered it appropriate to examine the complaints under Article 10 alone.   The Court reiterated that whereas the right of a foreigner to enter or remain in a country was not as such guaranteed by the Convention, immigration controls had to be exercised consistently with Convention obligations.   The Court considered that the ban on re-entering Turkey imposed on the applicant on account of her previous conversations with students and colleagues constituted an interference with her rights under Article 10. It disregarded the fact that the right to freedom of expression was guaranteed without distinction between nationals and foreigners. The applicant, being precluded from re-entering, was no longer able to impart information within Turkey. The Court was prepared to accept that this interference pursued a legitimate aim, as submitted by the government, in particular the interests of national security or national integrity.   However, any restriction on the rights under Article 10 had to be “necessary in a democratic society” and therefore construed strictly. The Court observed that there had never been any suggestion that the applicant had committed an offence by voicing controversial opinions on Kurdish and Armenian issues and no criminal prosecution had ever been brought against her. These opinions related to topics which continued to be the subject of heated debate, not only within Turkey but also internationally. While the opinions expressed by one side might sometimes offend the other side, a democratic society required tolerance in the face of controversial expressions. The Court was moreover unable to see from the reasoning of the domestic courts how exactly the applicant’s views were deemed harmful to Turkey’s national security.   The Court therefore concluded that no sufficient and relevant reason had been given by the domestic courts for the ban on the applicant’s re-entry into Turkey. It had been designed to stifle the spreading of ideas. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 10.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 12,000   euros in respect of 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   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) 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) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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. All final judgments   are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .