CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 juin 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; 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 } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s7C768949 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; 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 }   487 15.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Turgay and Others v. Turkey (application nos. 8306/08, 8340/08 and 8366/08)   two TURKISH weekly newspapers SUSPENDED FOR A MONTH IN BREACH OF THE CONVENTION   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression and information) of the European Convention on Human Rights   Principal facts   The applicants are 12 Turkish nationals, who, at the relevant time, were the owners, executive directors, editors-in-chief, news directors and journalists of two weekly newspapers published in Turkey: Yedinci Gün and Toplumsal Demokrasi . The publication of those newspapers was suspended for a month in January 2008 on the basis of a law for the prevention of terrorism (Law no. 3713). The applicants were criminally prosecuted for disseminating terrorist-aligned propaganda; the proceedings in their cases are still pending at first instance.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article   10 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the suspension of the publication and distribution of the newspapers concerned, which they claimed amounted to censorship. Further, relying on Articles   6 (right to a fair hearing), 7 (no punishment without law), 13 (right to an effective remedy), and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) of the Convention, the applicants complained about the unfairness of the proceedings before the first instance court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 08 February 2008.   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 Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar ,     Decision of the Court   The Court first noted that it had recently examined an identical complaint, in the case of Ürper and Others v. Turkey, in which it had found a violation of Article   10. It then saw no particular circumstances in the present case requiring it to depart from the previously drawn conclusions. The Court observed that the suspension of the publication and distribution had not been imposed on concrete news reports or articles, but on the future publication of entire newspapers, whose content had been unknown at the time of the national court’s decision. Therefore, the Court concluded that the preventive effect sought with that suspension had resulted in implicit sanctions on the applicants to dissuade them from publishing similar articles in the future and thus hinder their professional activities.   The Court found that less draconian measures could have been envisaged, such as the confiscation of particular issues of the newspapers or the restriction on the publication of specific articles. Consequently, by suspending the publication and distribution of the newspapers, even for a short period of time, the domestic courts had unjustifiably restricted the essential role of the press as a public watchdog in a democratic society. In addition, the practice of banning the future publication of entire periodicals on the basis of domestic law had gone beyond any notion of “necessary” restraint in a democratic society and, instead, had amounted to censorship.   Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.   The Court considered that there was no need to make a separate ruling on the complaints under the other Articles, since it had examined the main legal question raised under Article 10.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Turkey had to pay to each applicant 1,800 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 1,000 euros (EUR) jointly for costs and expenses.   *** 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 or Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.