CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 5 décembre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     622   5.12.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KÜÇÜK v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Küçük v. Turkey (application no. 28493/95). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 4,000   euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is in French only.)   1.     Principal facts   Yalçın Küçük is a Turkish national who was born in 1938. He was living in Paris when this application was lodged.   In December 1992 he was arrested while in possession of audio-visual cassettes of an interview he had had with Abdullah Öcalan, the PKK leader. He was prosecuted for publicly vindicating a terrorist organisation but acquitted by the Istanbul National Security Court on 26 April 1993 on the ground that the cassettes in question had not been shown to the public.   In April 1993 the applicant published a book entitled “Interview in the Kurdish Garden”, which reproduced in question and answer form the interview he had had with the PKK leader. Certain passages of the book referred, among other things, to the “programme for Kurdish cultural autonomy” or to the foundations of Turkish nationalism. The applicant was prosecuted for separatist propaganda and sentenced by the National Security Court to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 250,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL). Copies of the book were confiscated. The court found that the book divided the State of the Turkish Republic into two parts: Turkey and Kurdistan, and that it was a propaganda tool for the creation of a Kurdish state. After Law no. 4126 of 27   October 1995 came into force, the National Security Court re-examined the case and reduced the applicant’s sentence to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of TRL   100,000,000. That sentence was upheld by the Court of Cassation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12 July 1995 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 28   August 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), President , Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), John Hedigan (Irish), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (Macedonian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant submitted that his conviction for publishing the book infringed his right to freedom of expression.   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that the confiscation of the book and the applicant’s criminal conviction amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression and that those measures had been taken under section 8(1) of Law no. 3713 and Article 36 § 1 of the Criminal Code. Having regard to the sensitivity of the security situation in south-east Turkey and to the need for the authorities to be alert to acts capable of fuelling additional violence, the Court found that the aim of the measure was to protect territorial integrity and national unity and security.   The Court noted that the book, which took the form of an interview, contained passages concerning the Kurdish cause and others criticising or commenting upon various political, historical and literary issues. It considered that the book, which was written in a literary and metaphorical style, had to be put into context. Although certain passages contained fierce criticism, especially of the Turkish authorities, the Court considered that that was a reflection of the intransigent stance that had been taken by one of the parties to the conflict rather than an incitement to violence. In that connection, it reiterated that while it was conscious of the authorities’ concerns that words or deeds might exacerbate the security situation in south-east Turkey, it considered that the book taken as a whole did not constitute an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising.   The Court was of the view that the authorities had failed to have sufficient regard to the general public’s right both to receive alternative forms of information and to survey the situation in south-east Turkey. In the case before it, there was no evidence that the book contained passages inciting people to “hatred” or “vindicating or inciting violence”. It also took into account the nature and severity of the sentences imposed on the applicant.   The Court found that the content of the book, in particular from the perspective of public safety and public order, did not justify such a serious interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression. The applicant’s conviction and the confiscation of the book did not meet a pressing social need and were not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Accordingly, the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression could not be regarded as being “necessary in a democratic society”.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.