CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 juin 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 } .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 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; 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 } 463 08.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not Final [1] Gül and Others v. Turkey (application no. 4870/02)   CONVICTION OF NON-VIOLENT DEMONSTRATORS FOR SHOUTING SLOGANS IN SUPPORT OF AN ILLEGAL ORGANISATION UNJUSTIFIED   Violation of Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights   Principal facts   The applicants, Ercan Gül, Deniz Kahraman, Zehra Delikurt and Erkan Arslanbenzer are four Turkish nationals who were born in 1966, 1977, 1979 and 1965 respectively. In November 1999, they were arrested by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Ankara Police Headquarters. The public prosecutor informed the applicants’ representatives that under the relevant provisions of criminal law the applicants were not entitled to legal assistance during police custody. Three days later the prosecutor of the Ankara State Security Court questioned the applicants about their alleged affiliation with an armed illegal organisation, the TKP/ML, which they all denied. All four applicants contended that they had participated in demonstrations, and two of them stated they had done so as members of a trade union.   Three weeks later the prosecutor of the Ankara State Security Court charged Ms Delikurt with membership of an illegal organisation and the other applicants with aiding and abetting members of an illegal organisation under the relevant provision of the Criminal Code in force at the time. The prosecutor alleged in particular that the applicants had shouted slogans in support of the illegal organisation in question or other illegal slogans at demonstrations and that several publications in support of the organisation had been found in their apartments. The applicants were convicted of aiding and abetting members of an illegal organisation and sentenced to three years and nine months imprisonment in a judgment upheld by the court of cassation in April 2001.   Following an amendment of the Criminal Code in August 2003 the case was reopened. In June 2004 the State Security Courts in Turkey were abolished and the case was subsequently transferred to the Assize Court. In July 2004, that court decided not to convict Ms Delikurt, allowing her request under a new amnesty law, and she was consequently released from prison. The other three applicants were sentenced to ten months imprisonment for disseminating propaganda related to an illegal armed organisation under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Two of the applicants appealed and the proceedings are currently still pending.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly), the applicants in particular complained of their conviction for reading certain periodicals, participating in demonstrations and shouting slogans. Under Article 6 they further complained that were deprived of legal assistance during their police custody.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 November 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court considered that the applicants’ complaints had to be examined exclusively under Article 10. It noted that there had been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, by which the authorities had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting national security and public order in accordance with the former Criminal Code and with the Prevention of Terrorism Act.   As to the question whether the interference had been proportionate to this aim, the Court observed that the applicants had shouted the slogans in question during lawful, non-violent demonstrations. Although, taken literally, some of the phrases, such as “Political power grows out of the barrel of the gun”, had a violent tone, they were stereotyped slogans which could not be interpreted as a call for violence or an uprising.   The Court reiterated that in a pluralist democratic society, tolerance was required also of ideas that offended or shocked. Given that the applicants had not advocated violence, injury or harm to any person, it found that the initial prison sentence and the lengthy criminal proceedings had been disproportionate. The applicants’ conduct could further not be considered to have had an impact on national security or public order.   In the light of these findings, the Court concluded, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Turkey is to pay each of the applicants EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   Judges Sajó and Tsotsoria expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   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 [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   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 .