Information Note on the Court\u2019s case-law 227<\/p>\n
March 2019<\/p>\n
Ali G\u00fcrb\u00fcz v. Turkey<\/strong> – 52497\/08, 6741\/12, 7110\/12 et al. Article 10<\/strong> Prolonging of numerous sets of criminal proceedings against a newspaper proprietor, subsequently acquitted, for publishing statements by terrorist organisations: violation<\/p>\n Facts \u2013 Seven sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant between June 2004 and April 2006 for the publication of articles containing statements by leaders of illegal organisations in the daily newspaper of which he was the proprietor. In the context of those proceedings, which had lasted for up to seven years, the applicant was sentenced to pay fines and was subsequently acquitted on account of the abolition of the criminal liability of press proprietors for such publications.<\/p>\n Law \u2013 Article 10: The automatic application of the law prohibiting the publication of any statement emanating from a terrorist organisation, regardless of its actual content or context, had entailed seven sets of criminal proceedings, brought against the applicant for similar facts over a two-year period. The question was therefore whether those proceedings, in the absence of any other repressive measures against the applicant in that connection, could constitute in themselves an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression. Those proceedings, on account of their number and duration \u2013 up to seven years \u2013, were capable of having a chilling effect on freedom of expression and public debate, by intimidating the applicant and discouraging him from publishing articles on questions of general interest. Those criminal proceedings had consisted in themselves of genuine and effective constraints. His ultimate acquittal had merely put an end to the existence of certain risks, without detracting from the fact that those risks had put pressure on him over a certain period and had made him, as a media professional, apply some self-censorship. Consequently, there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression.<\/p>\n The interference in question was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting national security and territorial integrity, and of preventing disorder and crime.<\/p>\n The judicial authorities had brought proceedings solely on the ground that the statements published in the applicant\u2019s newspaper emanated from organisations characterised as terrorist under Turkish law, without carrying out an appropriate analysis of the substance of the disputed comments or the context in which they had been written, in the light of the criteria laid down and applied by the Court in cases concerning freedom of expression. Nor had the authorities alleged that these articles, taken as a whole, contained any calls to violence, armed resistance or uprising, or that they constituted hate speech, this being the essential factor to be taken into consideration.<\/p>\n Therefore, the articles could be regarded as contributing to a public debate on questions of general interest relating to the conflict between the organisations in question and the police.<\/p>\n The repeated criminal prosecutions could also have had the effect of partly censoring the media professionals concerned and of limiting their ability to publicly convey an opinion \u2013 provided of course that they did not advocate directly or indirectly the commission of terrorist offences \u2013 which was part of a public debate. The enforcement measures taken automatically against media professionals under the relevant law, without considering their aims or the public\u2019s right to be informed of other views on a conflict, could not be reconciled with the freedom to receive or impart information or ideas.<\/p>\n The fact that the numerous sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant had been prolonged for a considerable length of time, on the basis of serious criminal charges, did not meet a pressing social need. The impugned measure had not been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and accordingly was not necessary in a democratic society.<\/p>\n Conclusion: violation (unanimously).<\/p>\n Article 41: EUR 3,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n (See also G\u00f6zel and \u00d6zer v. Turkey, 43453\/04 and 31098\/05, 6 July 2010, Information Note 132; Altu\u011f Taner Ak\u00e7am v. Turkey, 27520\/07, 25 October 2011, Information Note 145; Nedim \u015eener v. Turkey, 38270\/11, 8 July 2014, Information Note 176; \u015e\u0131k v. Turkey, 53413\/11, 8 July 2014, Information Note 176; Dilipak v. Turkey, 29680\/05, 15 September 2015, Information Note 188; D\u00f6ner and Others v. Turkey, 29994\/02, 7 March 2017, Information Note 205; and the Recommendation CM\/Rec(2016)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors)<\/p>\n
\nJudgment 12.3.2019 [Section II]<\/p>\n
\nArticle 10-1<\/strong>
\nFreedom of expression<\/strong><\/p>\n