CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 octobre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 123 October 2009 Ürper and Others v. Turkey - 14526/07 Judgment 20.10.2009 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Orders suspending publication of newspapers under anti-terrorist legislation: violation   Facts – The applicants were the owners, executive directors, editors-in-chief, news directors and journalists of four daily newspapers whose publication and distribution was repeatedly suspended in 2006 and 2007 for periods ranging from fifteen days to a month by court orders issued ex parte under anti-terrorist legislation. The newspapers were accused of publishing propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation, condoning crimes the organisation had committed, and revealing the identity of officials engaged in the fight against terrorism, so making them targets for terrorist attack. The applicants lodged unsuccessful objections to the suspension orders. Law – Article 10: The dangers inherent in the imposition of prior restraints on publication, especially where the press was concerned, called for the most careful scrutiny by the Court. Although the Court had held in previous cases (see, for example, Observer and Guardian v.   the United Kingdom , no.   13585/88, 26   November 1991) that prior restraints on the media were not per se incompatible with the Convention, the restraints in the applicants’ case had been imposed not on particular types of article, but on the future publication of entire newspapers, whose content was unknown at the time the court orders were made. In the Court’s view, both section   6(5) of the Prevention of Terrorist Act and the court orders had stemmed from the hypothesis that the applicants, whose “guilt” was established without trial in proceedings from which they were excluded, would recommit the same kind of offences in the future. The preventive effect of the suspension orders thus entailed implicit sanctions to dissuade the applicants from publishing similar articles in the future and to hinder their professional activities, when less draconian measures – such as the confiscation of particular issues or restrictions on the publication of specific articles – could have been envisaged. Accordingly, by suspending the publication and distribution of the newspapers, albeit for short periods, the domestic courts had largely overstepped the narrow margin of appreciation afforded to them and unjustifiably restricted the press’s essential role as a public watchdog. The practice of banning the future publication of entire periodicals under section   6(5) went beyond any notion of necessary restraint in a democratic society and, instead, amounted to censorship. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: Awards ranging from EUR 5,000 to EUR   40,000 to the owners of the newspapers in respect of pecuniary damage. EUR   1,800 to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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