CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 juin 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 208 June 2017 Ali Çetin v. Turkey - 30905/09 Judgment 20.6.2017 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Criminal conviction for referring to tax inspector in abusive and derogatory terms in letter sent to two administrative authorities: violation Facts – The applicant was convicted in criminal proceedings for having sent a letter to a foundation for which he had worked (a copy of which he attached to an administrative appeal), in which he criticised a tax inspector who had written a report that had led to the applicant’s dismissal of acting as though he were launching a “fatwa” against him, and indirectly compared the inspector to a fictional character from Turkish literature. Law – Article 10: The impugned conviction amounted to interference in the applicant’s exercise of his right to freedom of expression, was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others. It was clear from the wording of the letter attached to his administrative appeal that the applicant had been seeking to express his personal opinions. His statements were thus akin to value judgements rather than allegations of fact. The comments in question were not made as part of an open discussion of matters of public concern, but were criticisms issued in reaction to a report, drawn up by an inspector in his capacity as a civil servant, which had caused direct and undoubted harm to the applicant, namely his dismissal. In his complaint, the applicant was requesting the deletion of certain passages in the report, which, in his opinion, were likely to jeopardise his career. He compared the mentality of the report’s author to that of a fictional character from Turkish literature. The applicant’s conviction had been based on the terms which he used to describe the inspector, terms which had been found to be insulting and could be perceived as vexatious, and not on the critical opinions of a professional nature which he had expressed against the inspector. However, the impugned comments had been made in a letter attached to an appeal to challenge a report which had entailed serious professional repercussions for the applicant. They were not therefore intended to be accessible to the general public, but solely to the relevant domestic authorities. Bearing in mind the nature of the impugned remarks and the context in which they were disseminated, the grounds relied upon by the domestic authorities to convict the applicant could not be regarded as “relevant and sufficient”. Although the sanction imposed on the applicant (a seven-day prison sentence, commuted to a fine of about EUR 195) was a proportionate interference with the applicant’s right to exercise his freedom of expression, it had nevertheless constituted a penalty in the criminal meaning of the term. The applicant’s conviction had thus amounted to a disproportionate interference in his right to freedom of expression, which had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: claim in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage dismissed.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes