347:
valuable safeguard of the freedom of the press. At the same time, the Court noted that the suspensions of the publications had not been imposed only on selected reports but on the future publications of entire newspapers whose content had been unknown at the time of the domestic courts’ decisions. The Court further found that the applicants’ guilt had been established in proceedings from which they had been excluded. The domestic court had decided to suspend the publications on the assumption that the applicants would commit the same kind of offences in the future. Consequently the suspension orders had had the preventive effect of dissuading the applicants from publishing similar articles or news reports in the future and had hindered their professional activities.
262:” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2. It observed that the decision to impose the ban had contained no reasons. Nor had there been any indication that the newspaper in question had been likely to impart ideas of violence and rejection of democracy, or had had a potentially damaging impact that warranted its prohibition. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10. The Court further observed that it had previously held that both the provisions conferring powers on the governor of the state of emergency region to prohibit the circulation and distribution of written material and the manner in which those rules were applied escaped all judicial scrutiny. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.
312:. Between November 2006 and October 2007, the publication of all four newspapers was regularly suspended by the Istanbul assize court for periods ranging from 15 days to a month. The publications were considered propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation, the PKK/KONGRA-GEL (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation), as well as the approval of crimes committed by that organisation and its members, whilst at the same disclosing the identity of officials with anti-terrorist duties thus making them targets for terrorist attacks. Neither the applicants nor their lawyers participated in the court’s proceedings, and their written objections to the suspension orders were dismissed.
217:
Article 10 of the
Convention. This is also reflected in the interference underlying the facts of the present case. To that end, section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was abolished by Law no. 4928 and amendments were made by the Government to Article 312 by Law no. 4744. The Government undertake to ensure that the amended Article 312 will be applied in accordance with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention as interpreted in the Court's case-law.
205:, a daily newspaper published in Istanbul between 13 April 1995 and 16 August 1995. During these four months, confiscation orders were issued for 117 of the 126 issues published, either under the Prevention of Terrorism Act or under Article 312 of the Criminal Code. The applicant appealed against the orders on 21 occasions, each of the appeals being dismissed by Istanbul State Security Court.
283:
use of violence or incite resistance or rebellion, and they did not constitute hate-speech, which, in the Court’s view, was the essential element to be taken into consideration. The Court further noted the nature and severity of the penalties imposed on the applicants. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of
Article 10.
212:), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention. The case was struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 7,710 for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses. The following declaration from the Government of 4 January 2005 was part of the friendly settlement:
279:(Seventh Order of the Day) and Mr its owner. In June 2002 the applicants were twice fined for publishing in July and December 2001 statements by members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and an interview with a member of its executive committee. In addition the newspaper was ordered to be closed down for several days.
216:
The Court's rulings against Turkey in cases involving measures and prosecutions under the provisions of the
Prevention of Terrorism Act and under former Article 312 of the Penal Code clearly showed that Turkish law and practice needed to be brought into line with the Convention's requirements under
282:
The applicants submitted that their criminal convictions had breached
Article 10 (freedom of expression). The Court noted that although certain particularly virulent passages painted a very negative picture of the Turkish State, and thus gave the text a hostile connotation, they did not exhort the
350:
The Court held that less draconian measures could have been envisaged by the
Turkish authorities, such as confiscation of particular issues of the newspapers or restrictions on the publication of specific articles. The Court held unanimously that by having suspended entire publications, however
346:
The Court recalled that news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest. It then observed that the decisions to suspend the newspapers publications had been taken by the courts and found that that had been a
254:
The applicants complained that the ban on distributing the newspaper constituted unjustified interference with their right to impart information or ideas. They relied, in particular, on
Articles 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 7 (no punishment without law).
250:
in the provinces in which a state of emergency had been declared, namely
Diyarbakır, Hakkari, Siirt, Şırnak, Tunceli and Van. From 7 May 1999 it was forbidden to sell, distribute or store the newspaper in the region concerned.
495:
694:
689:
296:
The applicants are 26 Turkish nationals, owners, executive directors, editors-in-chief, news directors and journalists of four daily newspapers published in Turkey:
315:
In addition, some of the applicants were criminally prosecuted for the same offences as those attributed to the newspapers. Thus, Ali Gürbüz, who was the owner of
351:
briefly, the authorities had restricted unjustifiably the essential role of the press as a public watch-dog in a democratic society, in violation of
Article 10.
27:
499:
564:
452:
699:
258:
The issue for the Court to determine was whether the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression had been “
292:(nos. 14526/07, 14747/07, 15022/07, 15737/07, 36137/07, 47245/07, 50371/07, 50372/07 and 54637/07), judgment on 20 October 2009
496:"ECHR : Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayinciligi A.S. V. Turkey (No. 2) Publication : [not yet received]"
259:
431:
474:
23:
209:
397:
605:
542:
246:) issued a decree, applicable with immediate effect, prohibiting the publication and distribution of
652:
639:
626:
385:
319:, was sentenced to pay approximately EUR 217,000. Özlem Aktan, who was the executive director of
591:
208:
The applicant relied on
Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (
231:
At the material time the applicants, Halis Doğan, Cihan Çapan, Hasan Deniz, Varlık Özmenek,
674:
123:
8:
59:
520:
410:
668:
370:
167:
579:
97:
232:
71:
151:
107:
683:
157:
565:"Turkish block on Google site breached Article 10 rights, rules Strasbourg"
178:
145:
673:
ECHR lists 511 Article 10 violations by Turkey as of 13 June 2013:
453:"ECHR VERDICT: ECHR Orders Turkey to Pay Damages to 9 Publications"
398:
http://www.5rb.com/docs/Ustun-v-Turkey%20ECHR%2010%20May%202007.pdf
339:, three times. Hüseyin Bektaş, the owner and executive director of
475:"ECHR decision in Akdas v. Turkey (no 41056/04) - CyberLaw Blog"
366:
31:
242:
On 7 May 1999 the governor of the state of emergency region (
271:(nos 10037/03 and 14813/03), judgment passed on 24 July 2007
86:(nos 10037/03 and 14813/03), judgment passed on 24 July 2007
243:
275:
Mrs Hünkar
Demirel was the editor of the weekly newspaper
137:
Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayinciligi A.S. v. Turkey (no. 2)
235:
and Zeynep Tosun worked for the Turkish daily newspaper
675:
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{
695:
European Court of Human Rights cases involving Turkey
690:
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
521:"ECHR orders Turkey to compensate journalists - IFEX"
28:
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
221:
197:(no. 29910/96) Friendly settlement on 17 March 2005
142:"Maya" and "Yeni Dünya için Çağrı" magazines (2010)
20:List of ECHR cases concerning Article 10 in Turkey
139:(ECHR 2010 - judgement of breach of Article 2010)
681:
94:Halkın Sanatçısı, Halkın Savaşçısı: Yılmaz Güney
384:For the full text of the verdict in French see
371:ECHR Fines Turkey on "Freedom of Expression"
286:
265:
80:, (no. 50693/99) Judgment on 10 January 2006
562:
227:(no. 50693/99) Judgment on 10 January 2006
606:"HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights"
543:"HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights"
682:
563:Contributor, Guest (16 January 2013).
380:
378:
651:For the fill text of the verdict see
638:For the fill text of the verdict see
625:For the fill text of the verdict see
432:"ECHR: KAYASU v. TURKEY · Article 19"
191:
375:
13:
58:Tanıyan v. Turkey: (no. 29910/96)
14:
711:
661:
472:
260:necessary in a democratic society
408:
222:Halis Doğan and Others v. Turkey
201:Necati Tanıyan was the owner of
78:Halis Doğan and Others v. Turkey
700:Freedom of expression in Turkey
653:HUDOC, search page of the ECtHR
645:
640:HUDOC, search page of the ECtHR
632:
627:HUDOC, search page of the ECtHR
619:
598:
556:
535:
386:HUDOC, search page of the ECtHR
26:judgements finding breaches of
513:
488:
466:
445:
424:
402:
391:
360:
174:Güdenoğlu and Others v. Turkey
1:
655:; accessed on 30 October 2012
642:; accessed on 30 October 2012
629:; accessed on 30 October 2012
388:; accessed on 30 October 2012
354:
343:, was similarly prosecuted.
210:right to an effective remedy
7:
52:, no. 53916/00, 13 May 2004
37:
10:
716:
287:Ürper and Others v. Turkey
266:Demirel and Ateş v. Turkey
186:
84:Demirel and Ateş v. Turkey
327:, was indicted twice and
44:Communist Party v Turkey
331:, who was the owner of
168:Google Sites#Censorship
92:(2007) (publication of
50:Güneş v. Turkey (dec.)
669:Country Report Turkey
133:(2010) (no 41056/04)
321:Ülkede Özgür Gündem
317:Ülkede Özgür Gündem
298:Ülkede Özgür Gündem
60:Friendly settlement
46:(1998) 26 EHRR 1211
590:has generic name (
411:"USTUN v. TURKEY"
192:Tanıyan v. Turkey
164:Yildirim v Turkey
96:, a biography of
707:
656:
649:
643:
636:
630:
623:
617:
616:
614:
612:
602:
596:
595:
589:
585:
583:
575:
573:
571:
560:
554:
553:
551:
549:
539:
533:
532:
530:
528:
517:
511:
510:
508:
507:
498:. Archived from
492:
486:
485:
483:
481:
470:
464:
463:
461:
459:
449:
443:
442:
440:
438:
428:
422:
421:
419:
417:
406:
400:
395:
389:
382:
373:
364:
341:Gerçek Demokrasi
310:Gerçek Demokrasi
119:Ürper and Others
70:(no. 40287/98) (
68:Alinak v. Turkey
62:on 17 March 2005
715:
714:
710:
709:
708:
706:
705:
704:
680:
679:
664:
659:
650:
646:
637:
633:
624:
620:
610:
608:
604:
603:
599:
587:
586:
577:
576:
569:
567:
561:
557:
547:
545:
541:
540:
536:
526:
524:
519:
518:
514:
505:
503:
494:
493:
489:
479:
477:
471:
467:
457:
455:
451:
450:
446:
436:
434:
430:
429:
425:
415:
413:
407:
403:
396:
392:
383:
376:
365:
361:
357:
289:
268:
224:
194:
189:
131:Akdas v. Turkey
104:Birdal v Turkey
90:Üstün v. Turkey
40:
12:
11:
5:
713:
703:
702:
697:
692:
678:
677:
671:
663:
662:External links
660:
658:
657:
644:
631:
618:
597:
555:
534:
523:. 15 July 2010
512:
487:
465:
444:
423:
401:
390:
374:
358:
356:
353:
294:
293:
288:
285:
277:Yedinci Gündem
273:
272:
267:
264:
233:Ragıp Zarakolu
229:
228:
223:
220:
219:
218:
199:
198:
193:
190:
188:
185:
184:
183:
171:
161:
155:
149:
143:
140:
134:
128:
116:
113:Kaysu v Turkey
110:
101:
87:
81:
75:
65:
64:
63:
53:
47:
39:
36:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
712:
701:
698:
696:
693:
691:
688:
687:
685:
676:
672:
670:
666:
665:
654:
648:
641:
635:
628:
622:
607:
601:
593:
581:
566:
559:
544:
538:
522:
516:
502:on 2013-06-15
501:
497:
491:
476:
469:
454:
448:
433:
427:
412:
409:LTD., KETSE.
405:
399:
394:
387:
381:
379:
372:
368:
363:
359:
352:
348:
344:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
313:
311:
307:
303:
299:
291:
290:
284:
280:
278:
270:
269:
263:
261:
256:
252:
249:
245:
240:
238:
234:
226:
225:
215:
214:
213:
211:
206:
204:
203:Yeni Politika
196:
195:
181:
180:
175:
172:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
129:
126:
125:
120:
117:
114:
111:
109:
105:
102:
99:
95:
91:
88:
85:
82:
79:
76:
73:
72:Mahmut Alınak
69:
66:
61:
57:
56:
55:2004/5 cases
54:
51:
48:
45:
42:
41:
35:
33:
29:
25:
21:
16:
647:
634:
621:
609:. Retrieved
600:
568:. Retrieved
558:
546:. Retrieved
537:
525:. Retrieved
515:
504:. Retrieved
500:the original
490:
478:. Retrieved
468:
456:. Retrieved
447:
435:. Retrieved
426:
414:. Retrieved
404:
393:
362:
349:
345:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
314:
309:
305:
301:
297:
295:
281:
276:
274:
257:
253:
247:
241:
236:
230:
207:
202:
200:
177:
173:
163:
136:
130:
124:Özgür Gündem
122:
118:
112:
103:
98:Yılmaz Güney
93:
89:
83:
77:
67:
49:
43:
19:
17:
15:
588:|last=
329:Lütfi Ürper
248:Özgür Bakış
237:Özgür Bakış
152:Taner Akçam
108:Akın Birdal
684:Categories
506:2013-06-13
355:References
158:Eğitim-Sen
146:Hrant Dink
18:This is a
611:21 August
570:21 August
548:21 August
527:21 August
480:21 August
458:21 August
437:21 August
416:21 August
106:(2007) -
580:cite web
166:(2012) (
121:(2009) (
74:'s book)
38:Overview
473:admin.
187:Details
176:(2013)(
22:, i.e.
367:bianet
337:Güncel
333:Gündem
325:Gündem
306:Güncel
302:Gündem
179:Günlük
160:(2012)
154:(2011)
148:(2010)
115:(2008)
32:Turkey
667:ECHR
613:2016
592:help
572:2016
550:2016
529:2016
482:2016
460:2016
439:2016
418:2016
335:and
323:and
308:and
244:OHAL
24:ECHR
30:by
686::
584::
582:}}
578:{{
377:^
369:,
304:,
300:,
239:.
34:.
615:.
594:)
574:.
552:.
531:.
509:.
484:.
462:.
441:.
420:.
182:)
170:)
127:)
100:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.