CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 13 février 2003

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     090   13.2.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CETIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Çetin and Others v. Turkey (application nos. 40153/98 and 40160/98). 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 each applicant 2,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 to all the applicants for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is in French only.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Vedat Çetin, Mehmet Kaya, İsmet Bakaç, Ahmet Sünbül, Zeynel Bağır, Metin Dağ, Kemal Şahin and Naif Kılıç, are Turkish nationals living in Diyarbakır. At the material time they were working as journalists for the daily newspaper Ülkede Gündem . Ülkede Gündem ceased publication on 24 October 1998 and was replaced by Özgür Bakış . Another daily newspaper, 2 Binde Yeni Gündem , began publication on 27 April 2000 and was replaced on 31 May 2001 by the weekly newspaper Yedinci Gündem.   The applicants submitted that during September, October and November 1997 the security forces disrupted distribution of the newspaper in the region, which had been declared subject to a state of emergency. Mr Bakaç and Mr Bağır complained to the public prosecutor’s office about the obstruction of the paper’s distribution, but the prosecuting authorities ruled that they did not have jurisdiction and passed the complaint on to the Diyarbakır Administrative Council. The Administrative Council discontinued the proceedings in the light of the decisions to seize the paper. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld that decision on 3 March 2000.   On 1 December 1997 the governor of the state-of-emergency region prohibited the importing of Ülkede Gündem into the region and its distribution there. Mr Bakaç, the paper’s representative, was informed of the ban on 4 December 1997, and its distributors, the public limited company Birleşik Basım Dağıtım A.Ş ., was informed the following day.   The same ban was imposed on the successor papers to Ülkede Gündem in May 1999, June 2000 and June 2001. A notice served in June 2000 produced by the applicants shows that on various dates the governor of the state-of-emergency region banned imports and distribution of seventeen periodicals, which included Ülkede Gündem , Özgür Bakış and 2 Binde Yeni Gündem .   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application s [Note1] were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5   January and 5 February 1998 respectively. They were transmitted to the Court on 1   November 1998 and declared partly admissible on 6 November 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants complained of unjustified interference with the exercise of their right to impart information or ideas as a result of the ban on distribution of the daily newspaper Ülkede Gündem in the region subject to the state of emergency imposed by its governor on 1 December 1997.   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that the ban on importing Ülkede Gündem into the state-of-emergency region and on its distribution there amounted to interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. The interference was prescribed by law because section 11(e) of Law no. 2935 on the State of Emergency and Article 1(a) of Legislative Decree no. 430 provided for the measure in question, which aimed to defend public order and protect national security.   The Court noted that those provisions empowered the governor to ban the circulation or distribution of any written text that was prone to seriously disrupt public order in the region, stir up the local population or hinder the security forces in the performance of their duties by giving a distorted interpretation of the activities conducted in the region. Observing that neither the provisions conferring those powers on the governor nor the application of those rules were subject to judicial scrutiny, the Court could only share the concern expressed by the Turkish Constitutional Court on that point. In the Court’s view, the articles that had been seized could admittedly have had a special impact on the climate prevailing at the time in that region. However, it had to be pointed out that no reasons had been given for the ban and no reference made to decisions to seize given by the Istanbul courts. Furthermore, it had not been a preventive seizure in this case because such a measure could only have been ordered by a judge in criminal proceedings. Accordingly, in the absence of detailed reasons and adequate judicial scrutiny, the application of such a measure was open to a variety of interpretations.   Replying to the Government’s arguments that many sources of ideas and information were available to the inhabitants of the region and many other means available to the applicants by which to impart theirs, the Court reiterated the essential role played by the press in a democratic society. Moreover, contrary to the Government’s assertions, the Court noted that the ban in question had not been lifted after 53 days. It had still been in force in June 2000 and the successor papers to Ülkede Gündem, like others , had been met with the same fate. Lastly, since an application could not be made to the administrative courts for judicial review of the measures, they could only be lifted unilaterally by the governor of the state-of-emergency region and at his discretion.   In the Court’s opinion, the lack of judicial scrutiny in the area of issuing administrative bans deprived the applicants of sufficient safeguards to prevent possible abuse. Accordingly, the interference under section 11(e) of Law no. 2935 and Article 1(a) of Legislative Decree no.   430 and the application of those provisions in this case could not be considered as “necessary in a democratic society” and went beyond the requirements of the legitimate aim sought to be achieved. ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human RightsF – 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. [Note1]   For transitional-period cases before the former Court on 1 November 1998.