CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 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 } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sB7556BE6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s84C82F45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 501 22.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Bingöl v. Turkey (application no. 36141/04)   POLITICIAN WAS WRONGLY CONVICTED FOR HATE SPEECH OFFENCE   Unanimously   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr   Abdulkerim Bingöl, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Muş.   At the material time he was a committee member in the party DEHAP (Democratic People’s Party) and took part in political activities in that connection. On 28 February 2003, during the DEHAP congress, Mr Bingöl gave a speech in which he criticised the Turkish State over the Kurdish question.   The public prosecutor in the State Security Court called for his conviction for supporting the illegal organisation PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). The applicant was sentenced under the Criminal Code (Article 312 § 2) to one year and six months’ imprisonment for open incitement to racial hatred and hostility in society on the basis of a distinction between social classes, races or religions. That decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation.   After serving seven months of his prison sentence Mr Bingöl was released and requested his reinstatement, as a State employee, to the post of imam from which he had resigned in order to stand for election. That request was denied on account of his criminal conviction, together with his attempt to stand for election to parliament in 2007.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant complained about his criminal conviction for having expressed an opinion as a politician, arguing that it was particularly harsh and that he was discriminated against for belonging to the Kurdish ethnic minority.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 July 2004.   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   The Court first pointed out that the nature of the offending remarks was by no means comparable to those examined in the case of Garaudy [2] , to which the Turkish Government had referred. In that case the Court had found that the remarks fell outside the protection of Article 10 – in accordance with Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) of the Convention – taking the view that they were markedly revisionist and therefore ran counter to the fundamental Convention values of justice and peace.   In the present case it was not in dispute that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had been prescribed by the Criminal Code. The Court expressed serious doubts, however, as to the existence in the case of any of the legitimate aims mentioned by the Government.   As to the question of “necessity of the interference in a democratic society”, the Court stressed that it had already dealt with cases concerning similar questions in which it had taken account of difficulties related to the fight against terrorism. In the present case the remarks corresponded to an analysis of the Kurdish question by a vociferous critic of the Turkish State’s policies since the foundation of the Republic, and the State Security Court had taken the view that the terms used had incited people to hatred and hostility. The Court found that those reasons were insufficient by themselves to justify the interference in question. Whilst certain passages portrayed the Turkish State in a very negative light, with a hostile connotation, they did not however advocate the use of violence. Above all, they did not seek to arouse deep or irrational hatred against those who were presented as responsible for the situation at issue.   The Court noted that the applicant had received a particularly harsh punishment, namely imprisonment for a year and a half and ineligibility from public service and from standing for election, whereas he had been a politician. The Court took the view that the remarks had been made in the context of a debate of legitimate public interest and that there was no evidence to justify a prison sentence in those circumstances.   The interference did not meet any compelling social need and was not therefore “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court thus found that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Having regard to that finding, the Court did not examine separately the complaint submitted under Article 14.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Turkey was to pay the applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.     ***   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 .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone : + 33 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. 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 . [2] Garaudy v. France (no. 65831/01, 24 June 2003)