CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 octobre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4AB727D5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .s5D95DB35 { border:1.5pt solid #f8f8f8; clear:both } .s42665967 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:6pt; padding-right:6pt; padding-left:6pt; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s499EF5A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:6pt; padding-left:6pt; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .s6211FF2F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:6pt; padding-left:6pt; padding-bottom:6pt; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .sA790A2B6 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#4d4d4d } .s86B71249 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:10pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:13pt } .sB1DBBAAD { font-family:Arial; color:#4d4d4d } .sC897901E { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sCCDE293C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify } .sF6F4B4AB { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:10pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:13pt } .s3400F3BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BF6A7B3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4566725A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt } .s3838A079 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify } .s1D09AB4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sED16FFEB { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-top:1pt; font-size:2pt } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s7C0CA362 { margin-top:18pt; border:1.5pt solid #f8f8f8; clear:both } .s79F89FD5 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#0072bc } .sEFC47909 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:6pt; padding-left:6pt; font-size:4pt; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .sF5C1637F { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s4F8E2AF5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s7BB14FF6 { margin-top:3pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   Ban imposed on radio station for broadcasting regious programs was disproportionate In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncıliğı A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 2) (Application no.   42284/05) which is not final [1] , the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a:   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights Principal facts The applicant, Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncıliğı A.Ş., is a broadcasting company that was based in Istanbul at the time of the events. On 27 February 2002 the Turkish Broadcasting Authority (Radio ve Televizyon Üst Kurulu – the “RTÜK”) revoked its broadcasting licence. The decision was based mainly on the fact that, despite six temporary broadcasting bans for programmes that had breached the constitutional principle of secularism or had incited hatred, the applicant company had continued to broadcast the religious programmes in question. The authority referred in particular to a programme “along the editorial line of Nur Radyo”, which was detected on 19 November 2001 – during one of the bans – by the Bursa Governor’s Office. The pirate broadcast had apparently originated in the United States and was transmitted via satellite and terrestrial links. The applicant company applied to Ankara Administrative Court for the annulment of the RTÜK’s decision but its claim was dismissed on 31 December 2002. In a judgment of 2 March 2005, served on the company on 10 May 2005, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Administrative Court’s decision. The grounds given by the RTÜK were confirmed. In the meantime, criminal proceedings had been initiated against the managers of Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncıliğı A.Ş., in their personal capacity, on account of the pirate broadcast of 19 November 2001. They were acquitted as there was insufficient evidence of their presumed responsibility for the broadcasting of the programme in question. The company subsequently sought the review and immediate suspension of the RTÜK’s decision to revoke its broadcasting licence. However it was unsuccessful, before both the Ankara Administrative Court and the Regional Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court also dismissed the request for suspension, on 14 December 2007. The proceedings concerning the application for review are, however, still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court, according to the latest information received by the Court. Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court The applicant company argued in particular that the revocation of its broadcasting licence had constituted an unjustified interference with its right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 November 2005. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows: Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia) , Judges ,   and also Stanley Naismith , Section Registrar. Decision of the Court It was not in dispute that the revocation of the broadcasting licence constituted an “interference” with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression. The main question for the Court was whether that interference could be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”. To answer that question the Court examined the grounds given by the RTÜK and the domestic courts in their decisions. The decision to revoke the broadcasting licence had been taken by the RTÜK on account of the repetition of the offences of which the applicant company was accused: in particular, after being banned temporarily for six offences, it was found to have committed a further offence by broadcasting its programme of 19 November 2001. The Court noted that this had been a pirate broadcast, via satellite and terrestrial links, using a frequency that had not been allocated to the company and that came from Bursa, whereas the radio’s broadcasting centre was in Istanbul. The Court further noted that the main reason why the RTÜK had found the applicant company to be responsible for that programme was because it reflected the editorial line of Nur Radyo. However, as regards the pirate broadcast in question, the Istanbul Criminal Court had acquitted the managers of the company for lack of evidence. The Court thus took the view that it had been arbitrary to include the seventh programme in the aggregate assessment of the offences that led to the revocation. It concluded that the additional penalty imposed on the applicant on the basis of offences for which other sanctions had already been imposed was not compatible with the principle of the rule of law. Lastly, it noted that the request for review of the decision revoking the broadcasting licence had been pending for over four years before the administrative courts. The Court accordingly found that the breach of the freedom of expression of Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncıliğı A.Ş. had not been necessary in a democratic society and that there had been a violation of Article 10. By way of just satisfaction (Article 41) the applicant company had sought an award corresponding to the market value of the radio station, which it alleged to be 1,000,000 euros. The Court, however, did not consider itself to be in a position to award it any sum on that basis, as there was insufficient evidence in the case file for it to make a precise evaluation of the losses caused by the revocation of the broadcasting licence. The judgment is available only in French.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site . To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds . Press contacts [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 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 Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution